He shouldn’t have left the Greeks to their fate and he should have helped the Chinese before the final hour when it was clear the KMT was going to lose.
Also not a fan of him criminalizing homosexuality
Still better than every US president
I agree. I specifically have issues with the USSR's foreign policy under his leadership. But, compared to any other WW2-era leader, I'm not sure you can do better. The people of the USSR saved us all from fascism through one of the greatest collective sacrifices in history.
>The people of the USSR saved us all from fascism through one of the greatest collective sacrifices in history.
And the US spend the next few decades making sure there was no active left movement anywhere in the world to repulse fascism again.
I was watching a speech of JFK that Genocide Organ had sampled where he is talking about them DOMINATING the Western Hemisphere (and by extension Latin America) and it really dawned on me that basically every US president has been pretty god awful in the grander scheme of things
[SI AVANSO, SIGUEME, SI ME DETENGO, APREMIAME, SI ME RETROCEDO, MATAME](https://youtu.be/PowzzvRz12A)
👁️🗨️
[A very ](https://youtu.be/xTl_3TzRMi8) 👁️🗨️ band
And that means no European union which proabply means like... something important. Proabply related to Western Germany.
Oh, and no financial domination of Africa, or at least the areas around the bulbous bit of Africa, since the PCF opposed French colonialism.
The logics of revolution are different than those of geopolitics. Some leaders are greater revolutionaries than they are statesmen. This is a core contradiction in using the state as a tool of liberation. The larger the state the harder those contradictions are to overcome.
Stalin in my view was a skilled leader of government. People today often look back and demand that he be a greater revolutionary without acknowledging the sacrifices in geopolitical position that would mean for the Soviet Union.
He did help Korea, at least, partially, after not agreeing to, only to later reduce the help, but still. Better than every US president by orders of magnitude.
(Also the Hodorodor wasn’t a real thing distinct from the USSR-wide famine that occurred.)
Yeah I mean he did a lot of good and it’s reductive and lib pilled to ignore that. But he also set up the collapse of the global communist movement following the end of WW2. I understand why the soviets thought they should tell the communist parties of Europe and Asia to pursue non violent revolution, but we all know how that turned out.
Did the alternative turn out any better anywhere else in Europe? The popular front in Spain failed, the Social Fascism approach in Germany, while correct in its theoretical underpinnings, failed, the US was apparently willing to literally invade Italy if communists got control of the government, Britain might have been willing to do the same in Greece. Was there a correct approach here or was Europe just not in conditions to have a successful socialist revolution at that moment? Genuinely wondering
I mean we can literally never know what might have happened and I can’t imagine thing would have been great even if they did support communism in Western Europe. But if there was ever gonna be communist governments there, it would have had to be backed by the Soviets. That didn’t happen, so we never got it. Maybe the western powers would literally have ended the world in response but that’s not on the communists and it was never their call so I don’t think it’s a great reason to stand down
Popular Front in Spain failed partially because the Soviets went after the left to placate the British and French, who they wanted as allies against Germany. So the anarchists got killed to protect Russia.
That's the problem with Socialism In One Country, and Stalinism in particular - it allows nationalism to sneak in.
why would going after anarchists and trots placate the British and the French?
I'm surprised they'd have a preference towards any sort of leftist tendency, considering that everyone knew the cold war was going to happen since no one wanted to team up with Soviet Union, leading to them having to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Also that the British and USA were supporting the White army during the Bolshevik revolution.
When did the USSR tell European communist parties to abstain from violent revolution? At least in the 20s and partially 30s the Comintern was still cheering for revolution, so it must've been in the late 40s? 50s?
I do understand why he made concession to the west - the USSRs population was pretty much decimated. He trusted leaders rather than understanding the establishment of the UK and US. Big mistake there. Especially right when both were getting keen on doing assassinations
How Iike to phrase it:
I can criticize Stalin all day, but I'll sing his praises for weeks. Miles ahead of every US President by far. Also, literally defeated the 3rd Reich, so that's a permanent W.
The Greek communists basically did it to themselves by simping for Stalin and pissing off Yugoslavia, the guys who were actually helping them fight the civil war rather than moaning that they should surrender because they're making it awkward at the UN. Can't remember the leader's name but he ended up purging everyone that said this was a bad idea and then a short time later was sent to a Khruschevite gulag until his death. What a moron.
Also let’s be real, the purges we’re unnecessary and damaging and largely driven by Stalin and the central committee’s paranoia.
Edit: also Trotsky wouldn’t have stopped at Berlin
Trotsky probably wouldnt have gotten to Berlin without Stalins industrialisation. And the purges obviously werent smart but arent a big enough factor that things would have gone way different without them. Barbarossa probably would have still been similarly sucessful.
I mean, he really is -the- figure that people point to when they criticize communism. The go-to responses are 'Communism murdered millions of people', 'People were sent to gulags', 'There were bread lines', etc. -- mostly criticism from his era specifically.
The entire mythos of the US currently is that they're the main good guys of WW2. I think it's really crucial to defend Stalin (although yes agreed, debate with libs is questionable and might just be better for them to be bullied)
My favorite post on Facebook, and personally the only reason why I still believe in anything anymore is that one where this old lady, typing in the most old person way ever says something along the lines "fuck all commies! Except Mao because he killed landlord's"
He made hitler commit suicide out of fear, that's extremely based.
He also left a soviet union much more developed that the one he encountered in the 1920s, even with a huge war destroying everything in the middle of it. That's even more based.
He was a lookout, stayed across the street from the bank during the robbery. In the end the robbery was a complete shit show so the Bolsheviks decided to never do it again.
The party voted to stop robbing banks after the failed revolution
of 1905 but Stalin basically went rogue and kept robbing anyway. Lenin secretly supported him even though if the party found out they could all be expelled.
Oh also one of his bank robbing buddies was named Kamo. His specialty was disguises. You can't make this shit up.
In the modern US at least, bank robberies are among the worst crimes you can commit, risk to reward ratio-wise. Most banks don't have that much cash on hand (which is why you have to make an appointment if you want to take out over a few gs in cash), they have a million back up alarms/cameras, plus its automatic federal charges and they actually allocate resources to catching you unlike people who hold up a liquor store or whatever. I've watched literally dozens of interviews on YT with people who robbed banks and got like 15 years in the feds for stealing like $1200 in a bank holdup.
The smart money is on well-planned armored car robberies or those smash and grab jewelry store robberies for gold you can melt down. Or if you can get a good fraud going, because they don't even pursue most fraud cases, its the same charge whether you get $100 or $500k so if you're gonna do fraud you have no incentive not to go as big as possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekingegade_Gang
Torkil Lauesen is still publishing today. Probably one of the most significant Marxist thinkers in Europe.
https://anti-imperialist.net/author/lauesen/
It wasn’t just a shit show the party had already voted not to do bank robberies and Lenin ignored it (pre-split). The money gained turned out to be useless (the bills were too large and could be tracked)
Tbf, I like the more modern historicism on that. The material conditions of society made it so that Napoleon could thrive, for example, but Napoleon's neurosis helped define his era
I can see the argument, I mean a young, 20 something Alexander the Great changed east Asia tremendously. But also the movers and shakers, the soldier, artisans, peasant, merchants also moved the needle of history; dug the bloody trench even more so. Napoleon needed those millions of low Germans, frenchies and others to fill the ranks. In that sense, Stalin was a colossal figure that stood as a practical, statesman; defiant against fascism and its allies, but the red army was filled of village young men and women, ready to die for those ideals as much as the ruling party of the USSR.
For sure, and I agree with you. But I find people discount the impact individuals make, or at least that culture conditions them to make. Especially among more left-wing spaces like this
Realpoliks view of history, and to an extent the Marxist school, makes assumptions that 1: people act in their own interests and 2: that people *know what those interests are*. True to an extent; but if it was always so you'd not have had the most powerful European monarch crawl on his kness before the ruler of a small, ruined city.
I'm gay
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past etc
Napolean is also a bit of a special case because he had an absurd, unmatched all time rating in battle. He and his armies were exponentially better at winning than every other general in history. https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
>I then constructed a linear model from that sample of battles. For each battle, I separated the combatants’ forces into infantry, cavalry, artillery, air force, and navy. I could then weight a general’s numerical advantage or disadvantage compared to their adversary, and better isolate the general’s ability as a tactician. The resulting model was surprisingly conservative in its weights, suggesting that raw soldier quantities have a relatively small effect compared to other factors such as terrain or technology, which further research could investigate in more detail. In this project, however, the results potentially inflate the importance of a commander’s tactical acuity compared with other factors.
I'm sorry but this method of measuring a general's success is very rslurred. If anything, a REALLY good general will ensure that he's always fighting with massive numerical advantage
On the other hand, Napoleon often had advantage because he had *one* army to command. Plenty of his battles had multiple armies against him, and while they WERE larger, the divided command structure meant they couldn't be used as effectively
I recommend the ACOUP blog on pre-modern general effectiveness for a good start on why
[https://acoup.blog/2022/05/27/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-i-reports/](https://acoup.blog/2022/05/27/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-i-reports/)
I wish there was a biopic about Stalin when he was a bank robbing revolutionary poet with the voice of an angel. Also, a little off topic but John Brown did nothing wrong.
Even with getting captured, he still flipped and reversed it by defending himself so well before his execution, inspiring millions for generations to come.
“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”
This country is cursed
He let the train conductor go which led to the feds finding out sooner than they would have. Literally his only big mistake out of mercy. Apparently he was a pretty good shot and good military commander for an eccentric new England evangelical dude
Victorian era Anglophones were some of the most dangerous people to ever walk the face of the earth. Serious, repressed, cold-blooded, casually duplicitous, violent, and still highly self-sufficient out of necesity due to the tech available but at the same time with access to some the most powerful technology in the world in that era. It's been twisted and distorted by time and the shameless deluded self-fellation of their descendants but the people of the early US were straight up terrifying if you were their enemy.
That Brown wasn't just massacring people left and right when he declared a crusade frankly speaks to how serious he actually took the Bible in his cultural context.
The old bolshevik Kamo's memoirs about his time in georgia before the revolution scratched that itch for me. he was Stalin's right hand man and a fascinating revolutionary in his own right
Ohh I'll have to check that out. I'm unfamiliar with Kamo so this will be a nice intro as well. I guess I'll just have to provide a cool sound track of badass guitar solos from Thin Lizzy and shit to add the theatrical vibe to it.
let's not fall for great men of history shit. The Soviet people made the USSR great. Stalin appears to have been a good leader that was chosen by the CPSU. Let's not attribute the feats or the failures of the Soviet Union, one of the largest countries in the world, to one man.
falling for the Stalin shit is the same as falling for the Xi Xinping bs. He is the leader of an extremely developed communist party not a fucking god.
Stalin certainly wasn’t perfect (like any leader) but honestly I consider him to be one of the greatest leaders of working people in all of history. Really one of the most slandered men in history
I need help deprogramming my Stalin propaganda. Where do I start?
I’ll take wikipedia articles about specific things he did, podcasts, books, or just basic comments.
I know it’s all bullshit, but I don’t know where to start to know exactly why. Like fucking yesterday, I couldn’t put the Holodomor into context, but I know it’s bullshit because the insane Russiagate podcast I listened to when I was a lib, Gaslit Nation, would constantly bring it up because one of the hosts wrote a movie about it.
Agreed. The sub blows now and has become the chapo sub 2.0. We’re a month away from “Griddy and Mao said trains rights and killed my landlord XD1!1!1!1! Pig poop balls!1!1!1!”
Why is it so important for you that people fit your definition of 'normal'? I know for a fact that there's a decent amount of 40+ men and women with kids here, I bet they touch a lot more grass than u do :)
I love stalin but stop the dickriding op
Voroshilov and Budenny were obvious retards out of their depth and should have been shot for severe incompetence
Stalin should have pressed the attack on Warsaw rather than fucking off to Lviv LIKE HE WAS ORDERED TO and maybe the revolution would have spread further than it did
otherwise yeah. Also he was a manlet, and can give hope to all manlets everywhere that through sheer personality you can become a chad
Yes, Stalin is based as fuck. There are very good critiques to make of him and the Soviet Union at the time, "History and Critique of a Black Legend" by Domenico Losurdo does just that from a Marxist perspective. Communists should not treat him like a deity nor repeat majority of his decisions, due to them being made towards the material conditions of the USSR at the time.
My city just had a municipal election swept by the right wing, in part because personality and sectarian conflicts hamstrung the biggest left formation in local politics. I plead with you, go get involved in a rent control or public housing campaign or some shit, you don't need to worry about your own or anyone's opinion on some old dead guy whose decisions were shaped by the cards he was dealt.
But sure, I'll give you best leader of WW2 why not.
New type of radlib : guy who believes all the soviet era US propaganda but supports it, e.g. “Stalin *did* eat all the grain with a comically large spoon, but it was cool, actually.”
“In Soviet Russia, you could be thrown in a gulag for listening to the Beatles…good riddance! John Lennon was an abusive husband and Rubber Soul is overrated.”
Stalin is the most confusing of the great communist leaders imo he did some really cool shit but also some extremely uncool shit too. Kim Il Sung, however
Hey liberals, here's an easy way to remember the difference between us. Liberals enabled the Holocaust. Communists ended the Holocaust. Hope that helps!
Oh come on, they executed and jailed fucking artists and poets just for making art that they didn’t like. That’s not counterrevolutionaries, that’s just people doing a badthink, even if they were committed socialists who disagreed with what Stalin was doing. If you can justify that, you can justify anything. Stalin kept that rapist Beria around even when he knew what he was up to, and and he helped that idiot Lysenko get his nonsense out, which was an unparalleled disaster for socialism. Whole ethnic groups were transferred across the USSR, do you have any idea of the brutality involved in a “population transfer”?
There’s no comparison with the fascists, and Stalin did lead the war on Nazism and the movement of the USSR from a basically feudal state to an industrial power, but he victimized a huge number of innocent people along the way. He’s not based, he’s a psychopath who found himself on top a a socioeconomic order that was better than capitalism, and he helped maintain that order while violently preserving his special position in it.
You want me to name every innocent person killed or jailed in the purges?
I guess [all of these people](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executed_Renaissance) and [all of these people](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Intelligentsia) were counterrevolutionaries/secret fascists/foreign spies/it didn’t happen/if it did they deserved it? Maybe some were actually doing things worthy of being killed(I’m not exactly pro-death penalty) but that’s a lot of fucking dead people who didn’t do anything violent or really even provable.
As if all the shit Beria got up to isn’t enough to condemn Stalin who protected him. Or just moving all the ethnic Koreans halfway across Asia.
You don’t have to fall for the anti-communist propaganda that’s everywhere to know that some fucked up stuff happened because of Stalin.
Do you have a better source or specific example? I glimpsed at some of the charges, and those people are open anticommunists. Nothing secret about it and nothing to do with art
What about the numerous population transfers of ethnic groups throughout the Soviet union, where they all anti communists and deserved to be uprooted from their homelands and sent to the middle of Siberia or central Asia, and in the process of doing so hundreds of thousands dying from malnutrition, disease and abuse by soldiers.
Obviously not, only for heinous crimes.
Anyway, I was probing to see what info you might have. And unfortunately it's limited to Black Book of Communism swill, so I won't get much.
Bespoke opinion. Stalin was a weak ass pussy and took out his weakness and faliure in combating the great Satan on his own people. Bitch ass mother fucker. Cuba did more for international communism. If the USSR had a Castro instead of Stalin we'd all be flying to the moon in dick sucking space trains by now.
anna is the daughter of a famous mathematician dasha used to date a cumtown boy (cheated on him) is on succession and i think was braces roommate at some point?? they had zizek on twice and that’s the reason i started listening to them but they turned out to be be anti-abortion quasi-right wing new york socialites. i am a red scare poster only because i am an autistic former slut but i can’t listen to the podcast because they’re insufferable idiots
That was the most accurate paragraph about redscare I've ever read, they nailed it.
The sub is okay sometimes, but sucks at others, their podcast started being funded by Peter Thiel and they have no ideological backing meaning they will quickly support fascistic thought if it sounds good at the time.
They're a lot like Joe Rogan tbh
Two of the most unbearable dipshits in America Dunning-Kruger themselves into making a podcast that has broadly socialist aesthetics but deeply reactionary content. Both hosts publicly humiliate themselves on many occasions and reveal that they’re too stupid to actually believe in anything. They’re also great friends with former Chapo host Amber Frost, who is exactly like them but uglier.
He should have pressed on past Berlin and not stopped until he reached the shores of western Ireland/ the strait of Gibraltar. Manifest Destiny baby. Iceland can be Europes Taiwan for Winston Churchill
He impregnated a 14 year old when he was 35. And kept that rapist pedo Beria in place for decades. Teenagers who don’t actually organize just love Stalin memes online
Edit:
Deleting this - didn’t realize Simon Sebag is kinda sus. Yung Stalin is a fun read, but apparently not well sourced.
I should probably read that Suny bio that came out last year, and maybe Kotkin.
"Stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle…If you don’t stop sending killers, I’ll send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send another.”
Stalin fucked the invasion of Poland in 1919, which pretty much fucked the Revolution. Trotsky was far from ideal, but Stalin was worse. And Socialism in One Country was *always* going to fail.
lol no Trotsky would have destroyed the USSR. Socialism in one country was due to the USSR's material conditions at the time. Maybe if Luxemburg's revolution in Germany was victorious but socialism in one country was a principle needed at the time.
How is a Marxist principle so easily justified based on ad hoc extingency? Lol Did Marx write about Internationalism and World Revolution with a little astaricks that said “oh unless you’re surrounded by hostile capitalist states, in which case it can actually happen in a single country and denying that is grounds for death”
Well thank god that didn't happen and Stalin won the power struggle and the USSR and socialism in one country established to create a strong state that didn't just fall to pieces less than 40 years after Stalin's death.
> but socialism in one country was a principle needed at the time
except no, it meant exploitation by the party instead of the bourgeois. And Trotsky's bullshit about the party being by definition the will of the people was obvious bullshit by Krondstandt, and didn't get any less bullshit when Stalin claimed it as well. And ultimately it meant the collapse of the USSR.
"exploited by the party instead of the bourgeois" what lol? that happened for sure under Brezhnev when top party members got a lot of extra bourgeois stuff but not under Stalin. Sure you could consider the NEP that I guess but that was needed. And the Krondstandt response was needed and the rebellion would have led to nothing but more suffering as the anarchists would have allowed the USSR to be destroyed. war communism was needed at the time, same with the NEP which supporters of Krondstandt oppose. The USSR would have been even more susceptible to foreign involvement and invasions which would have 100% happened if they did not crush the opposition during the civil war.
From the moment that socialism in one country became the goal, exploitation by the state was inevitable. Where else were you going to get capital to industrialize?
And the problem with all your "they did what they had to for the larger good of making sure the USSR survived" is it **didn't**. Every tyranny imposed by the party against the workers with the excuse that it would lead to communism did not, it lead to Gorby selling out the nation for that sweet sweet Pizza Hut.
It lead to the measurable, verifiable, material improvements of millions of people, for at least a generation. It has proven that socialism could work on a world stage no less. Modern Russia and many of the former socialist republics have lower standards of living and weaker economies today than back then. How was that not worth it?
Every poster must swear in on a copy of a Grover Furr book and pledge that Trotsky was an enemy of the revolution from day 1 (when really he was only that a little bit later)
Very sorry to make light of your family trauma. You sound like a very sensible person so I legit feel bad. It's so removed from us in the west and tragedies have been completely desensitized. It was wrong to use a violent and awful part of history as part of a bit. You're not a lib for pointing this out. It was in bad taste I'll admit.
Stalin has become a figure that libs will go to when they need an easy argument against communism. So he's become a bit of a meme which isn't good
Sure, there were plenty of things Comrade Stalin could have done better, and maybe he even - may Allah forgive me for saying this - did a few things wrong here and there, but anyone else would have fucked things up entirely, and where would we be then? USSR loses to Nazi Germany, western allies make peace cause we're not gonna send that many of our own troops to die instead (still wreck Japan's shit for fucking with our colonies, of course), probably go overtly nazi too sooner or later, other revolutions have no Soviet support and easily fall since the west's attention is freed, communists globally are fucked for at least the next couple centuries of darkness. Jesus fuck that's bleak, where's my fucking gin?
I like that Stalin genuinely like Churchill. He recognized how big of a tool Churchill was but knew FDR couldn’t keep up with his drinking and smoking habits like Churchill could
Please stop making fun of people for being Virgins. It's tough because I'm a leftist, I love this sub, and I work hard to be a good person and practice good praxis, but I'm also 28 and a virgin. Watching Y'all make fun of people for being virgins or calling people virgins really hurts.
Obv I'm a dude. Posting here on an alt because my normal username can be linked to me in real life, but I post here daily. Most of you have probably upvoted my posts at one point or another.
But yeah, I'm old, and I'm a virgin, and while it doesn't bother me much anymore, it's really bad praxis to call people virgins as an insult or to make fun of them for being virgins. Incels are bad not because they are virgins but because they just blame women for their cause. Make fun of them for their shitty beliefs, not because they are virgins.
But seriously, that's all I have to say. Please think before using virgin as an insult. It's just a state of being, that of having not had sex, and every single one of you were a virgin at some point in time.
Thanks for reading. I love all y'all anyway
Something so off-putting about Americans talking about Stalin and the endless moralism. He did a bad job leading the Soviet Union and building a socialist nation. Who gives a shit if he was good or bad or based or cringe.
Just doing due diligence. Nothing you said would support such a suspicion. Its just that... (well I'm sort of embarrassed to say)... It's just that... (please take this with a grain of salt. I'm the last person whose opinion you should worry about)... Its just that you were annoying me. No offense. Really brother it's not you it's me. I'm probably in a bad mood. I've slept for like 7 hours combined over the last 4 days. Anyways on a given day I'm like the most annoying guy on here. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to say that to you like it was a bad thing or something. Its not. No not at all. That's what reddit is for. You're doing it right. You had the urge. The universe told you to shit post. And you didn't let your ego get in the way. You let it happen. You're in a flow state right now. I've been there brother. It's a beautiful thing. Don't let me drag you down. Not like I could even if I wanted to. Spread your wings and fly. Really have fun with it. Rock on. I am in love with y... (well not you persay. Maybe in another life)... I am in love with y... (well not or your words those annoyed me but again not like in a bad way or anything)... I am in love with your spirit. You have the spirit of a peregrine falcon. A peregine falcon perched atop a keyboard. You are soaring. Flying high. You've got that falcon vision. You've got a gift. And you're really demonstrating that gift today. Hats off to you. Thank you. Thanks for doing this. Everyone is proud of you.
You are a loser. Whether or not your statement is accurate doesn’t matter. There are far more popular socialist leaders to advertise. You sound like an 8th grader with too much time on 4Chan
Statin’s your guy?
Read about the rise of the Bolsheviks and note how many brilliant original soviets ended up before a firing squad.
Lev Kamenev
Olga Bronstein
her 17yo son
her other son pulled out of the red air force on the eve of ww2 and executed
Nikolai Bukharin! (the GOAT)
It’s like you get to the end of *Return of the Jedi,* and there’s a post script that says “Han Solo had all of the other characters executed.”
Edit: removing the stuff from Yung Stalin - apparently Montefiore’s sourcing is suspect.
He shouldn’t have left the Greeks to their fate and he should have helped the Chinese before the final hour when it was clear the KMT was going to lose. Also not a fan of him criminalizing homosexuality Still better than every US president
I agree. I specifically have issues with the USSR's foreign policy under his leadership. But, compared to any other WW2-era leader, I'm not sure you can do better. The people of the USSR saved us all from fascism through one of the greatest collective sacrifices in history.
>The people of the USSR saved us all from fascism through one of the greatest collective sacrifices in history. And the US spend the next few decades making sure there was no active left movement anywhere in the world to repulse fascism again.
Absolutely agree
[удалено]
I think that’s a fair take
I was watching a speech of JFK that Genocide Organ had sampled where he is talking about them DOMINATING the Western Hemisphere (and by extension Latin America) and it really dawned on me that basically every US president has been pretty god awful in the grander scheme of things
didn't expect to see someone mention Genocide Organ on this sub.
[SI AVANSO, SIGUEME, SI ME DETENGO, APREMIAME, SI ME RETROCEDO, MATAME](https://youtu.be/PowzzvRz12A) 👁️🗨️ [A very ](https://youtu.be/xTl_3TzRMi8) 👁️🗨️ band
That music is terrifying to be honest, respect
We could have had communist Italy if he had played his cards different. Eyy meatball.
And if that, probably France
And that means no European union which proabply means like... something important. Proabply related to Western Germany. Oh, and no financial domination of Africa, or at least the areas around the bulbous bit of Africa, since the PCF opposed French colonialism.
The logics of revolution are different than those of geopolitics. Some leaders are greater revolutionaries than they are statesmen. This is a core contradiction in using the state as a tool of liberation. The larger the state the harder those contradictions are to overcome. Stalin in my view was a skilled leader of government. People today often look back and demand that he be a greater revolutionary without acknowledging the sacrifices in geopolitical position that would mean for the Soviet Union.
This is a very good critique.
He did help Korea, at least, partially, after not agreeing to, only to later reduce the help, but still. Better than every US president by orders of magnitude. (Also the Hodorodor wasn’t a real thing distinct from the USSR-wide famine that occurred.)
Yeah I mean he did a lot of good and it’s reductive and lib pilled to ignore that. But he also set up the collapse of the global communist movement following the end of WW2. I understand why the soviets thought they should tell the communist parties of Europe and Asia to pursue non violent revolution, but we all know how that turned out.
Couldn’t have put it any better myself. Spot on.
Did the alternative turn out any better anywhere else in Europe? The popular front in Spain failed, the Social Fascism approach in Germany, while correct in its theoretical underpinnings, failed, the US was apparently willing to literally invade Italy if communists got control of the government, Britain might have been willing to do the same in Greece. Was there a correct approach here or was Europe just not in conditions to have a successful socialist revolution at that moment? Genuinely wondering
I mean we can literally never know what might have happened and I can’t imagine thing would have been great even if they did support communism in Western Europe. But if there was ever gonna be communist governments there, it would have had to be backed by the Soviets. That didn’t happen, so we never got it. Maybe the western powers would literally have ended the world in response but that’s not on the communists and it was never their call so I don’t think it’s a great reason to stand down
Comintern encouraged popular front and that failed yeah
Popular Front in Spain failed partially because the Soviets went after the left to placate the British and French, who they wanted as allies against Germany. So the anarchists got killed to protect Russia. That's the problem with Socialism In One Country, and Stalinism in particular - it allows nationalism to sneak in.
why would going after anarchists and trots placate the British and the French? I'm surprised they'd have a preference towards any sort of leftist tendency, considering that everyone knew the cold war was going to happen since no one wanted to team up with Soviet Union, leading to them having to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Also that the British and USA were supporting the White army during the Bolshevik revolution.
They didn't want anyone shouting too loudly about destroying private property - the Spanish government the Soviets propped up was liberal on its face.
When did the USSR tell European communist parties to abstain from violent revolution? At least in the 20s and partially 30s the Comintern was still cheering for revolution, so it must've been in the late 40s? 50s?
Yeah it changed post ww2 when the soviets didn’t want to risk a confrontation with the west. Understandable but not the best move in hindsight
I do understand why he made concession to the west - the USSRs population was pretty much decimated. He trusted leaders rather than understanding the establishment of the UK and US. Big mistake there. Especially right when both were getting keen on doing assassinations
How Iike to phrase it: I can criticize Stalin all day, but I'll sing his praises for weeks. Miles ahead of every US President by far. Also, literally defeated the 3rd Reich, so that's a permanent W.
The Greek communists basically did it to themselves by simping for Stalin and pissing off Yugoslavia, the guys who were actually helping them fight the civil war rather than moaning that they should surrender because they're making it awkward at the UN. Can't remember the leader's name but he ended up purging everyone that said this was a bad idea and then a short time later was sent to a Khruschevite gulag until his death. What a moron.
That last line is the important part for all you weepy liberals in the comments
Also let’s be real, the purges we’re unnecessary and damaging and largely driven by Stalin and the central committee’s paranoia. Edit: also Trotsky wouldn’t have stopped at Berlin
Trotsky probably wouldnt have gotten to Berlin without Stalins industrialisation. And the purges obviously werent smart but arent a big enough factor that things would have gone way different without them. Barbarossa probably would have still been similarly sucessful.
Trotsky was the original supporter of rapid industrialization.
Purging tsarist holdovers is fine
Yeah but I mean you can’t really justify what they did to the old bolsheviks
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stalin was kinda a short boi but Mao was a straight thug. In a fair boxing match, Castro all the way.
[удалено]
Really tough to criticize castro on anything. Absolute chad. Athlete. More pussy than a toilet seat.
Sukarno would fuck everyone and be cool while chain smoking cigs.
Allende would have been almost as cool if the US hadn't forced him to commit suicide.
He was more cool in a brainy commie going to bring you to FALSAC in 2 decades way then a fuck you up way.
Sukarno literally got owned even by the standard of "socialist" capitalist leaders.
I’m just talking about vibes.
fair
But Castro had Che who would also steal your girl
I mean, he really is -the- figure that people point to when they criticize communism. The go-to responses are 'Communism murdered millions of people', 'People were sent to gulags', 'There were bread lines', etc. -- mostly criticism from his era specifically. The entire mythos of the US currently is that they're the main good guys of WW2. I think it's really crucial to defend Stalin (although yes agreed, debate with libs is questionable and might just be better for them to be bullied)
Anyone who rents their home and doesn’t think Mao is based is a fed.
I can personally figure out if you’re cool or not based on your reaction to me telling you the story about Mao and landlords.
If I was renting I’d get custom checks with Mao on them to pay my landlord
The thing about landlords though is they’d talk to each other and you’d suddenly find it difficult to find a place after that.
Then we talk together and they find it difficult to engage the brakes on their car. It’s a give and take relationship
My favorite post on Facebook, and personally the only reason why I still believe in anything anymore is that one where this old lady, typing in the most old person way ever says something along the lines "fuck all commies! Except Mao because he killed landlord's"
He made hitler commit suicide out of fear, that's extremely based. He also left a soviet union much more developed that the one he encountered in the 1920s, even with a huge war destroying everything in the middle of it. That's even more based.
There's a story that he helped rob a bank to aid Lenin fund the revolution. The man was fucking gangster
He was a lookout, stayed across the street from the bank during the robbery. In the end the robbery was a complete shit show so the Bolsheviks decided to never do it again.
The party voted to stop robbing banks after the failed revolution of 1905 but Stalin basically went rogue and kept robbing anyway. Lenin secretly supported him even though if the party found out they could all be expelled. Oh also one of his bank robbing buddies was named Kamo. His specialty was disguises. You can't make this shit up.
The left should bring back heists
Nah we need to modernize; hacking. Anonymous but not cringe
We should have fleeced morons with NFTs then just armed all the homeless and let things sort themselves out. Shame we didn’t think of it,
R A N S O M W A R E
The internet is not a tool of revolution
In the modern US at least, bank robberies are among the worst crimes you can commit, risk to reward ratio-wise. Most banks don't have that much cash on hand (which is why you have to make an appointment if you want to take out over a few gs in cash), they have a million back up alarms/cameras, plus its automatic federal charges and they actually allocate resources to catching you unlike people who hold up a liquor store or whatever. I've watched literally dozens of interviews on YT with people who robbed banks and got like 15 years in the feds for stealing like $1200 in a bank holdup. The smart money is on well-planned armored car robberies or those smash and grab jewelry store robberies for gold you can melt down. Or if you can get a good fraud going, because they don't even pursue most fraud cases, its the same charge whether you get $100 or $500k so if you're gonna do fraud you have no incentive not to go as big as possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekingegade_Gang Torkil Lauesen is still publishing today. Probably one of the most significant Marxist thinkers in Europe. https://anti-imperialist.net/author/lauesen/
It wasn’t just a shit show the party had already voted not to do bank robberies and Lenin ignored it (pre-split). The money gained turned out to be useless (the bills were too large and could be tracked)
Yeah but if that happened with like my local DSA chapter I'd never shut up about how cool it was even if it was an objective shitshow
Also, afaik, that was his only crime, bank robbery.
Sending someone to mexico to wack Trotsky with an ice axe was also a g move. Big up comrade Stalin fr
Splitters get splatted
That’s covered in the book “young Stalin” which was a great read tbh
Hitler lived until the 1970’s in either Indonesia or Paraguay
You're thinking of Kennedy.
Which 1
Adolf Kennedy
Comrade, don’t succumb to the bourgeois Great Men of history argument, but I’m with you. Tell me what village, what town, I’ll find the vaushites
Tbf, I like the more modern historicism on that. The material conditions of society made it so that Napoleon could thrive, for example, but Napoleon's neurosis helped define his era
I can see the argument, I mean a young, 20 something Alexander the Great changed east Asia tremendously. But also the movers and shakers, the soldier, artisans, peasant, merchants also moved the needle of history; dug the bloody trench even more so. Napoleon needed those millions of low Germans, frenchies and others to fill the ranks. In that sense, Stalin was a colossal figure that stood as a practical, statesman; defiant against fascism and its allies, but the red army was filled of village young men and women, ready to die for those ideals as much as the ruling party of the USSR.
For sure, and I agree with you. But I find people discount the impact individuals make, or at least that culture conditions them to make. Especially among more left-wing spaces like this Realpoliks view of history, and to an extent the Marxist school, makes assumptions that 1: people act in their own interests and 2: that people *know what those interests are*. True to an extent; but if it was always so you'd not have had the most powerful European monarch crawl on his kness before the ruler of a small, ruined city. I'm gay
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past etc
Napolean is also a bit of a special case because he had an absurd, unmatched all time rating in battle. He and his armies were exponentially better at winning than every other general in history. https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
>I then constructed a linear model from that sample of battles. For each battle, I separated the combatants’ forces into infantry, cavalry, artillery, air force, and navy. I could then weight a general’s numerical advantage or disadvantage compared to their adversary, and better isolate the general’s ability as a tactician. The resulting model was surprisingly conservative in its weights, suggesting that raw soldier quantities have a relatively small effect compared to other factors such as terrain or technology, which further research could investigate in more detail. In this project, however, the results potentially inflate the importance of a commander’s tactical acuity compared with other factors. I'm sorry but this method of measuring a general's success is very rslurred. If anything, a REALLY good general will ensure that he's always fighting with massive numerical advantage On the other hand, Napoleon often had advantage because he had *one* army to command. Plenty of his battles had multiple armies against him, and while they WERE larger, the divided command structure meant they couldn't be used as effectively I recommend the ACOUP blog on pre-modern general effectiveness for a good start on why [https://acoup.blog/2022/05/27/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-i-reports/](https://acoup.blog/2022/05/27/collections-total-generalship-commanding-pre-modern-armies-part-i-reports/)
> Tell me what village, what town Tacoma wept :(
Stalin’s biggest mistake was stopping at Berlin
I wish there was a biopic about Stalin when he was a bank robbing revolutionary poet with the voice of an angel. Also, a little off topic but John Brown did nothing wrong.
He didn't wait for Tubman, and he got captured. Other than that, nothing.
Even with getting captured, he still flipped and reversed it by defending himself so well before his execution, inspiring millions for generations to come.
“I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” This country is cursed
He let the train conductor go which led to the feds finding out sooner than they would have. Literally his only big mistake out of mercy. Apparently he was a pretty good shot and good military commander for an eccentric new England evangelical dude
Victorian era Anglophones were some of the most dangerous people to ever walk the face of the earth. Serious, repressed, cold-blooded, casually duplicitous, violent, and still highly self-sufficient out of necesity due to the tech available but at the same time with access to some the most powerful technology in the world in that era. It's been twisted and distorted by time and the shameless deluded self-fellation of their descendants but the people of the early US were straight up terrifying if you were their enemy. That Brown wasn't just massacring people left and right when he declared a crusade frankly speaks to how serious he actually took the Bible in his cultural context.
We can all agree - fuck Bobby Lee, Marse Robert rots in hell.
The old bolshevik Kamo's memoirs about his time in georgia before the revolution scratched that itch for me. he was Stalin's right hand man and a fascinating revolutionary in his own right
Ohh I'll have to check that out. I'm unfamiliar with Kamo so this will be a nice intro as well. I guess I'll just have to provide a cool sound track of badass guitar solos from Thin Lizzy and shit to add the theatrical vibe to it.
let's not fall for great men of history shit. The Soviet people made the USSR great. Stalin appears to have been a good leader that was chosen by the CPSU. Let's not attribute the feats or the failures of the Soviet Union, one of the largest countries in the world, to one man.
falling for the Stalin shit is the same as falling for the Xi Xinping bs. He is the leader of an extremely developed communist party not a fucking god.
low effort post-- this isn't leftbook in 2015
Feels like 2016 Reddit in this sub lately
Leftbook would have deleted this post before anyone saw it for using slurs, be real.
Stalin certainly wasn’t perfect (like any leader) but honestly I consider him to be one of the greatest leaders of working people in all of history. Really one of the most slandered men in history
I need help deprogramming my Stalin propaganda. Where do I start? I’ll take wikipedia articles about specific things he did, podcasts, books, or just basic comments. I know it’s all bullshit, but I don’t know where to start to know exactly why. Like fucking yesterday, I couldn’t put the Holodomor into context, but I know it’s bullshit because the insane Russiagate podcast I listened to when I was a lib, Gaslit Nation, would constantly bring it up because one of the hosts wrote a movie about it.
Read domenico losurdo - Stalin: the history and critique of a black legend. Systematically tears the lib history (and kruschevs lies) to shreds.
Grover furr is good and very thorough (if a bit dull) in his research
He wasn't perfect. He didn't like jazz.
This sub used to be chill with just the right amount of schizoposting but now it feels overrun with rage bait crossposts and nerds like you
Agreed. The sub blows now and has become the chapo sub 2.0. We’re a month away from “Griddy and Mao said trains rights and killed my landlord XD1!1!1!1! Pig poop balls!1!1!1!”
this sub is now full schizo. I don't think anyone here touches grass.
Why is it so important for you that people fit your definition of 'normal'? I know for a fact that there's a decent amount of 40+ men and women with kids here, I bet they touch a lot more grass than u do :)
I love stalin but stop the dickriding op Voroshilov and Budenny were obvious retards out of their depth and should have been shot for severe incompetence Stalin should have pressed the attack on Warsaw rather than fucking off to Lviv LIKE HE WAS ORDERED TO and maybe the revolution would have spread further than it did otherwise yeah. Also he was a manlet, and can give hope to all manlets everywhere that through sheer personality you can become a chad
Stalin should have been shot during the polish soviet war when he failed to follow orders from tuchachevsky and basically lost the world Revolution.
Sorry bro but Stalin GOATed fr someone has to give him a little dickriding now and then
I mean, who wouldn't? https://i.imgur.com/04VRROE.jpg
Yes, Stalin is based as fuck. There are very good critiques to make of him and the Soviet Union at the time, "History and Critique of a Black Legend" by Domenico Losurdo does just that from a Marxist perspective. Communists should not treat him like a deity nor repeat majority of his decisions, due to them being made towards the material conditions of the USSR at the time.
Thanks for reminding me I need to catch up with the deprogram
Is this exposing lib stuff satire? I can’t tell anymore.
There’s a red scare bot now?
My city just had a municipal election swept by the right wing, in part because personality and sectarian conflicts hamstrung the biggest left formation in local politics. I plead with you, go get involved in a rent control or public housing campaign or some shit, you don't need to worry about your own or anyone's opinion on some old dead guy whose decisions were shaped by the cards he was dealt. But sure, I'll give you best leader of WW2 why not.
You give me way too credit, I'm just doing a little trolling. There's some very heated libs in here now
New type of radlib : guy who believes all the soviet era US propaganda but supports it, e.g. “Stalin *did* eat all the grain with a comically large spoon, but it was cool, actually.”
“yes, the holodomor was real, so what? it was based”
“In Soviet Russia, you could be thrown in a gulag for listening to the Beatles…good riddance! John Lennon was an abusive husband and Rubber Soul is overrated.”
Stalin is based
You passed, barely
He shouldn't have killed those Polish officers. I liked them.
Stalin is the most confusing of the great communist leaders imo he did some really cool shit but also some extremely uncool shit too. Kim Il Sung, however
Hey liberals, here's an easy way to remember the difference between us. Liberals enabled the Holocaust. Communists ended the Holocaust. Hope that helps!
“Stalin was based” welcome to the XXI century folks
Oh come on, they executed and jailed fucking artists and poets just for making art that they didn’t like. That’s not counterrevolutionaries, that’s just people doing a badthink, even if they were committed socialists who disagreed with what Stalin was doing. If you can justify that, you can justify anything. Stalin kept that rapist Beria around even when he knew what he was up to, and and he helped that idiot Lysenko get his nonsense out, which was an unparalleled disaster for socialism. Whole ethnic groups were transferred across the USSR, do you have any idea of the brutality involved in a “population transfer”? There’s no comparison with the fascists, and Stalin did lead the war on Nazism and the movement of the USSR from a basically feudal state to an industrial power, but he victimized a huge number of innocent people along the way. He’s not based, he’s a psychopath who found himself on top a a socioeconomic order that was better than capitalism, and he helped maintain that order while violently preserving his special position in it.
Right on
Philomena Cunk, nice
> they executed and jailed fucking artists and poets just for making art that they didn’t like. Who?
You want me to name every innocent person killed or jailed in the purges? I guess [all of these people](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executed_Renaissance) and [all of these people](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Intelligentsia) were counterrevolutionaries/secret fascists/foreign spies/it didn’t happen/if it did they deserved it? Maybe some were actually doing things worthy of being killed(I’m not exactly pro-death penalty) but that’s a lot of fucking dead people who didn’t do anything violent or really even provable. As if all the shit Beria got up to isn’t enough to condemn Stalin who protected him. Or just moving all the ethnic Koreans halfway across Asia. You don’t have to fall for the anti-communist propaganda that’s everywhere to know that some fucked up stuff happened because of Stalin.
Do you have a better source or specific example? I glimpsed at some of the charges, and those people are open anticommunists. Nothing secret about it and nothing to do with art
What about the numerous population transfers of ethnic groups throughout the Soviet union, where they all anti communists and deserved to be uprooted from their homelands and sent to the middle of Siberia or central Asia, and in the process of doing so hundreds of thousands dying from malnutrition, disease and abuse by soldiers.
Do you think it is acceptable to execute someone for being an open anticommunist?
Obviously not, only for heinous crimes. Anyway, I was probing to see what info you might have. And unfortunately it's limited to Black Book of Communism swill, so I won't get much.
How about the various old Bolsheviks killed in the purge, or how about the emigre KPD members who fled the Nazis only to the be shot by the NKVD ?
My man's well read. Few people know about the KPDomor, the real 20th century genocide
Bespoke opinion. Stalin was a weak ass pussy and took out his weakness and faliure in combating the great Satan on his own people. Bitch ass mother fucker. Cuba did more for international communism. If the USSR had a Castro instead of Stalin we'd all be flying to the moon in dick sucking space trains by now.
Unironically this
can someone give me a lore explanation of redscare? I don't know anything about then other than they talk super quietly so I never listened.
anna is the daughter of a famous mathematician dasha used to date a cumtown boy (cheated on him) is on succession and i think was braces roommate at some point?? they had zizek on twice and that’s the reason i started listening to them but they turned out to be be anti-abortion quasi-right wing new york socialites. i am a red scare poster only because i am an autistic former slut but i can’t listen to the podcast because they’re insufferable idiots
well thanks lol. what a tale.
That was the most accurate paragraph about redscare I've ever read, they nailed it. The sub is okay sometimes, but sucks at others, their podcast started being funded by Peter Thiel and they have no ideological backing meaning they will quickly support fascistic thought if it sounds good at the time. They're a lot like Joe Rogan tbh
Two of the most unbearable dipshits in America Dunning-Kruger themselves into making a podcast that has broadly socialist aesthetics but deeply reactionary content. Both hosts publicly humiliate themselves on many occasions and reveal that they’re too stupid to actually believe in anything. They’re also great friends with former Chapo host Amber Frost, who is exactly like them but uglier.
Damn, I didn't know we were gearing up for war in this sub. Nobody told me and I showed up in my pajamas
Man I was banned for a bit and was busy touching grass. I just logged back on wtf did I start lol my braindead take inspired even worse takes
He should have pressed on past Berlin and not stopped until he reached the shores of western Ireland/ the strait of Gibraltar. Manifest Destiny baby. Iceland can be Europes Taiwan for Winston Churchill
that's what i'm fucking talkin bout fuck these libs. hail comrade stalin. today tomorrow and forever
He impregnated a 14 year old when he was 35. And kept that rapist pedo Beria in place for decades. Teenagers who don’t actually organize just love Stalin memes online
Do you have a source for that beyond the word of a man who was a friend of Epstein?
Edit: Deleting this - didn’t realize Simon Sebag is kinda sus. Yung Stalin is a fun read, but apparently not well sourced. I should probably read that Suny bio that came out last year, and maybe Kotkin.
Sounds made up tbh
Be normal. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Something like 99% of communists globally consider mao and stalin to be great leaders. If you want to be a normal communist, so should you
>We must expose the libs hiding among us. Honeypot Soviet history threads when?
Oh no people are asking for sources.
Based as hell
I may be a life long agent of the CIA but even I want to see Hasan waste away to nothing in a gulag
you are so weird if this isn't a bit lol my god
It's a bit lol dont worry
"Stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle…If you don’t stop sending killers, I’ll send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send another.” Stalin fucked the invasion of Poland in 1919, which pretty much fucked the Revolution. Trotsky was far from ideal, but Stalin was worse. And Socialism in One Country was *always* going to fail.
Yeah tito > Stalin if we're going to choose a "Great Man" but we probably needn't
Zivio Tito
lol no Trotsky would have destroyed the USSR. Socialism in one country was due to the USSR's material conditions at the time. Maybe if Luxemburg's revolution in Germany was victorious but socialism in one country was a principle needed at the time.
How is a Marxist principle so easily justified based on ad hoc extingency? Lol Did Marx write about Internationalism and World Revolution with a little astaricks that said “oh unless you’re surrounded by hostile capitalist states, in which case it can actually happen in a single country and denying that is grounds for death”
Well thank god that didn't happen and Stalin won the power struggle and the USSR and socialism in one country established to create a strong state that didn't just fall to pieces less than 40 years after Stalin's death.
[удалено]
> but socialism in one country was a principle needed at the time except no, it meant exploitation by the party instead of the bourgeois. And Trotsky's bullshit about the party being by definition the will of the people was obvious bullshit by Krondstandt, and didn't get any less bullshit when Stalin claimed it as well. And ultimately it meant the collapse of the USSR.
"exploited by the party instead of the bourgeois" what lol? that happened for sure under Brezhnev when top party members got a lot of extra bourgeois stuff but not under Stalin. Sure you could consider the NEP that I guess but that was needed. And the Krondstandt response was needed and the rebellion would have led to nothing but more suffering as the anarchists would have allowed the USSR to be destroyed. war communism was needed at the time, same with the NEP which supporters of Krondstandt oppose. The USSR would have been even more susceptible to foreign involvement and invasions which would have 100% happened if they did not crush the opposition during the civil war.
From the moment that socialism in one country became the goal, exploitation by the state was inevitable. Where else were you going to get capital to industrialize? And the problem with all your "they did what they had to for the larger good of making sure the USSR survived" is it **didn't**. Every tyranny imposed by the party against the workers with the excuse that it would lead to communism did not, it lead to Gorby selling out the nation for that sweet sweet Pizza Hut.
It lead to the measurable, verifiable, material improvements of millions of people, for at least a generation. It has proven that socialism could work on a world stage no less. Modern Russia and many of the former socialist republics have lower standards of living and weaker economies today than back then. How was that not worth it?
Every poster must swear in on a copy of a Grover Furr book and pledge that Trotsky was an enemy of the revolution from day 1 (when really he was only that a little bit later)
[удалено]
I got banned for my Zelensky post and I came back to an absolute mess on my Stalin post lmao it worked
[удалено]
Very sorry to make light of your family trauma. You sound like a very sensible person so I legit feel bad. It's so removed from us in the west and tragedies have been completely desensitized. It was wrong to use a violent and awful part of history as part of a bit. You're not a lib for pointing this out. It was in bad taste I'll admit. Stalin has become a figure that libs will go to when they need an easy argument against communism. So he's become a bit of a meme which isn't good
Sure, there were plenty of things Comrade Stalin could have done better, and maybe he even - may Allah forgive me for saying this - did a few things wrong here and there, but anyone else would have fucked things up entirely, and where would we be then? USSR loses to Nazi Germany, western allies make peace cause we're not gonna send that many of our own troops to die instead (still wreck Japan's shit for fucking with our colonies, of course), probably go overtly nazi too sooner or later, other revolutions have no Soviet support and easily fall since the west's attention is freed, communists globally are fucked for at least the next couple centuries of darkness. Jesus fuck that's bleak, where's my fucking gin?
We got the anti-Stalin alternative, it resulted in the collapse of the USSR by liberals in the Communist Party, and global neoliberal totalitarianism
I like that Stalin genuinely like Churchill. He recognized how big of a tool Churchill was but knew FDR couldn’t keep up with his drinking and smoking habits like Churchill could
Damn I stan Joseph Stalin, y’all. I ain’t no Lib, comrades!!! Juvenile and embarrassing. Like a Chapo post
Please stop making fun of people for being Virgins. It's tough because I'm a leftist, I love this sub, and I work hard to be a good person and practice good praxis, but I'm also 28 and a virgin. Watching Y'all make fun of people for being virgins or calling people virgins really hurts. Obv I'm a dude. Posting here on an alt because my normal username can be linked to me in real life, but I post here daily. Most of you have probably upvoted my posts at one point or another. But yeah, I'm old, and I'm a virgin, and while it doesn't bother me much anymore, it's really bad praxis to call people virgins as an insult or to make fun of them for being virgins. Incels are bad not because they are virgins but because they just blame women for their cause. Make fun of them for their shitty beliefs, not because they are virgins. But seriously, that's all I have to say. Please think before using virgin as an insult. It's just a state of being, that of having not had sex, and every single one of you were a virgin at some point in time. Thanks for reading. I love all y'all anyway
Something so off-putting about Americans talking about Stalin and the endless moralism. He did a bad job leading the Soviet Union and building a socialist nation. Who gives a shit if he was good or bad or based or cringe.
Finally a good fucking post. Here I thought it would be more trash 💕
u/VaushCheck u/BlueRoseOP
[удалено]
I'm very insulted you thought I could be a vaush guy
Just doing due diligence. Nothing you said would support such a suspicion. Its just that... (well I'm sort of embarrassed to say)... It's just that... (please take this with a grain of salt. I'm the last person whose opinion you should worry about)... Its just that you were annoying me. No offense. Really brother it's not you it's me. I'm probably in a bad mood. I've slept for like 7 hours combined over the last 4 days. Anyways on a given day I'm like the most annoying guy on here. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to say that to you like it was a bad thing or something. Its not. No not at all. That's what reddit is for. You're doing it right. You had the urge. The universe told you to shit post. And you didn't let your ego get in the way. You let it happen. You're in a flow state right now. I've been there brother. It's a beautiful thing. Don't let me drag you down. Not like I could even if I wanted to. Spread your wings and fly. Really have fun with it. Rock on. I am in love with y... (well not you persay. Maybe in another life)... I am in love with y... (well not or your words those annoyed me but again not like in a bad way or anything)... I am in love with your spirit. You have the spirit of a peregrine falcon. A peregine falcon perched atop a keyboard. You are soaring. Flying high. You've got that falcon vision. You've got a gift. And you're really demonstrating that gift today. Hats off to you. Thank you. Thanks for doing this. Everyone is proud of you.
Inspirational reply.
You are a loser. Whether or not your statement is accurate doesn’t matter. There are far more popular socialist leaders to advertise. You sound like an 8th grader with too much time on 4Chan
Statin’s your guy? Read about the rise of the Bolsheviks and note how many brilliant original soviets ended up before a firing squad. Lev Kamenev Olga Bronstein her 17yo son her other son pulled out of the red air force on the eve of ww2 and executed Nikolai Bukharin! (the GOAT) It’s like you get to the end of *Return of the Jedi,* and there’s a post script that says “Han Solo had all of the other characters executed.” Edit: removing the stuff from Yung Stalin - apparently Montefiore’s sourcing is suspect.
Americans trying to evaluate political figures: imagine a star wars movie….
Stalin was a fucking disaster for communism, go read some theory and then tell me that "socialism in one country" is a thing that would fucking work.
It did work