|
The Tsar and his ministers? Authoritarians, opposed worker control of the economy. Fascists and probably Bolsheviks.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
Enjoy posted:Wow, there's really no point in replying to you is there you have no critical thinking skills at all i think your future is to vote for trump if you represent the membership of the PSL then this party can gently caress right off into obscurity where it belongs until you fossils die and some normal people who can actually think grow up to do something worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The Tsar and his ministers? Authoritarians, opposed worker control of the economy. Fascists and probably Bolsheviks. Funny you should mention that because the Tsar's fellow "monarchist" (although I don't care about ideology) Napoleon III is sometimes described as the Socialist Emperor, thus proving socialism can have many forms, like yellow socialism, but also that the only real kind of socialism is anarchism as practiced by Nestor Makhno.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Hitler and Stalin did work together. They cut up Poland and Finland between each other and Hitler had a deal on Eastern Europe with with Ribbentrop. I don't really why they would have to work together for eternity anymore than Mao decided to stop working with the USSR or Tito or anyone else. They all had ideological differences. you've posted a lot of incorrect stuff itt but this is patently false. the soviet union's hand was forced and they knew germany would invade soon. molotov-ribbentrop was a way to buy some time and prepare after the west turned them down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Again to summarize: 1. "socialism" as used by the Bolsheviks referred to Marx's concept: http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm 2. "socialism" as used by the NSDAP called back to Bismarkian policy of state-supplied goods, and specifically for the German revanchists, denoted a high-fertility ethnic nation run by capitalist monopolies 3. "socialism" as used by the PSL does not even entail the abolition of private property, I'm not totally sure what they mean by socialism, but it's probably the exact same thing as both of the other definitions, which are both fascism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The Tsar and his ministers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:you have no critical thinking skills at all You're right, none of the people you're posting at can actually think, we must all have no critical thinking skills at all, which is why we are somehow more informed than you about world history, and any citation or disagreement we have with you is probably the result of our inability to string two thoughts together, which is why this sentence and every post you disagree with is completely formed of non-sequiters. And yeah based on the arguments you've read about Stalin in this thread, it is extremely likely that PSL supporters will eventually flock to Trump. Also, I'm being sarcastic, but my poorly developed brain leaves me unable to suggest sarcasm, rather I have to explicitly point it out each time to be sure my intentions came across. And thank you for the parting shot, it was very scary!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
as far as worker control in the soviet union, you're operating under misconceptions there, too. absolutely essential reading from a maoist historian who went into the projects skeptical of the ussr: human rights in the soviet union is the red flag flying? these are good reading if you want to know how the soviet union actually operated instead of the great man, "stalin pushed the big red genocide button" mainstream opinion a nice page from the latter source:  victor grossman on factory life vs. buffalo ny: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Shh! You're only supposed to be comparing Stalin to Hitler! A broader question of whether socialism improved the lives of average people is not relevant to the PSL candidate!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:Hitler and Stalin did work together. They cut up Poland and Finland between each other and Hitler had a deal on Eastern Europe with with Ribbentrop. I don't really why they would have to work together for eternity anymore than Mao decided to stop working with the USSR or Tito or anyone else. They all had ideological differences. So is Neville Chamberlain part of the communifascist axis of evil too then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Comparing Bolshevism to fascism is absolutely dishonest.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:you've posted a lot of incorrect stuff itt but this is patently false. the soviet union's hand was forced and they knew germany would invade soon. molotov-ribbentrop was a way to buy some time and prepare after the west turned them down. This is a very odd interpretation considering in the article the historian says that the Soviets were not serious and then confirmed it when in August 1939 they ignored pleas from the French about a western alliance and decided to go with the German one. Beginning in September 1939, the Soviet Comintern suspended all anti-Nazi and anti-fascist propaganda, explaining that the war in Europe was a matter of capitalist states attacking each other for imperialist purposes. I guess violating the 1932 Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was not imperialist, the conquest of the Baltics never happened and Stalin never extended in secret protocols an offer to join the Axis powers. The Soviets had plans for eastern Europe and the revival of Imperial Russian territory and Stalin was Hitler's best ally before the invasion. Hitler was not Stalin's immediate worry. Stalin wasn't prepared when Germany attacked and even executed for disinformation a German communist that came over the border with news of Operation Barbarossa. If they had plans to go to war with each other they were not immediate because the focus was on carving up Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Comparing Bolshevism to fascism is absolutely dishonest. It was anti-capitalist as they defined it: in the sense it was "anti-international finance supercapitalism" which they identified with foreign (British/Jewish interests). I mentioned this already. The fascists were very much for actual capitalism and the Nazis were the first modern nation to introduce privatization. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/ the perpetuated hierarchy was the problem. The nomenklatura pushed for perestroika because they already believed themselves to be capitalists. That's why a different organizational system is important. They were wrong because they butchered and murdered their way to power, almost joined the Axis and then ossified the definition of communism to their creaky nationalized and bureaucratized exchange system. Learning from their mistakes would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:as far as worker control in the soviet union, you're operating under misconceptions there, too. absolutely essential reading from a maoist historian who went into the projects skeptical of the ussr: I appreciate that you are providing these alternative sources of information even if they are little more than puff pieces by very serious propagandists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
swampman posted:This is nonsense, especially since "Bolshevism" is not the name of an ideology, it's the name of a political party that was active from 1905 until 1952 when it did not even dissolve but changed its name. Even if you can provide an example from one point in history, the deciding moment for the Bolsheviks was based on their full support of democratic workers movements, they were opposed to the Mensheviks in that they represented the working classes and not the liberal bourgeois. my opinion is that while you seem like an interesting person in the sense that you are passionate about your arguments i also get the vibe, and this is nothing personal or mean spirited, that you are all really odd people with weird ideas that are based on a constructed pseudo-reality. the reason is that you combined "CIA agent Khrushchev" and I have to be honest those words tell me that you are on a level of historical revisionism that rivals Time Cube. but this is fun so please tell me why was Khrushchev a CIA agent? Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:It was anti-capitalist as they defined it: in the sense it was "anti-international finance supercapitalism" which they identified with foreign (British/Jewish interests). I mentioned this already. The Bolsheviks learned the lessons on butchering and murdering their way to power from the way the Paris Commune was 'handled'. The fact that they actually succeeded in getting power, independently, and that every movement that did the same basically copied them, tells you that that kind of brutality is a necessity of any civil war. Had they not done what they did, they would have been butchered and murdered by the Whites. You want to see where the non-Bolshevik approach gets you, look at Allende - he got power democratically, got killed in a CIA coup. All honor to Allende, he did the right thing, but history never honors the right. Compare that with your bugbear, Molotov-Ribbentrop. The only reason the Western powers allowed the Fascists to grow, is because they saw them as a bulwark against the USSR - Molotov-Ribbentrop was Stalin's only way out, to try and build up the USSR before everyone invaded again. gently caress, here's a quote by Churchill, talking about how smart and snappy all those Fascists in Italy looked, because at least they weren't Communist! quote:“I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism.” The great tragedy of leftists is that they're beautiful people on the inside, but they never act ruthlessly enough. Rightists are more than happy to, which is why history is filled with their failed adventures and neuroticism. Militarism and expansionism aren't some kind of calling card of fascism, they're practical necessities in a world of actors that will do exactly the same thing back to you, when they have the chance. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
i wouldn't call militarism and adventurism 'practical necessities' in the context of fascism since the hallmark of actually existing fascist states in that sphere was starting stupid wars and getting their faces pushed in because of that because they were a cult of violence this is one of the 'practical outcomes' that distinguishes socialism in the soviet union from fascism, if you like DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Actually it's not even that, it's that the PSL doesn't deserve a second look because "some" of its membership holds wacky views about...??? Like absolutely none of this has actually been about the PSL platform or candidates or organization, just about the opinions of undefined segments of its membership regarding historical events. i usually vote for a socialist party unless there's a close contest with a lesser evil among the major parties, but i'm not american so
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Anastasia screamed in vain. I rode a tank, held a general's rank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:I appreciate that you are providing these alternative sources of information even if they are little more than puff pieces by very serious propagandists. lol why do i even bother
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:lol why do i even bother I trust you have a copy of noted anti-Soviet historian Robert Conquest's Industrial Workers in the U.S.S.R., and have cross-checked the citations of it in the top excerpt for yourself, to be so sure that what you are reading isn't a puff piece. Personally, I don't have the funds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
'it's pretty shocking that these people support russia and think the soviet union was a historically progressive country. such views have no place in politics.' - lord gideon of loving, ambassador to saudi arabia, member of the order of the british empire
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:my opinion is that while you seem like an interesting person in the sense that you are passionate about your arguments i also get the vibe, and this is nothing personal or mean spirited, that you are all really odd people with weird ideas that are based on a constructed pseudo-reality. Why do you find it so unlikely that the agents of imperialism have been successful at promoting a revisionist account of the history of the Soviet Union? If Stalin is the greatest enemy America faced in the last century, don't you think there would be a lot of lies told about Stalin in America and among bourgeois expats who fled socialism? Unfortunately, the greatest reinforcer of these lies are not the propagandists themselves, but average people like yourself who are satisfied with their current understanding of political ideology, who have already incorporated the lies into their politics. This is usually what happens when politics are not a matter of survival but of bourgeois narcissism and fealty to class comforts - not trying to be personal or mean spirited 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Actually it's not even that, it's that the PSL doesn't deserve a second look because "some" of its membership holds wacky views about...??? Like absolutely none of this has actually been about the PSL platform or candidates or organization, just about the opinions of undefined segments of its membership regarding historical events. i think, in fairness, that since the psl has minimal chance of taking power in the immediate future, there's not that much interest in discussing their specific policies rather than the prospect of a general move toward socialism that would have to accompany their specific policies becoming relevant. at least one of their presidential candidates is ineligible for the office and represents a protest rather than a serious thrust at the white house. on top of that, these threads always devolve toward a defence of socialism in general because they attract posters hostile to that. but we've had that thread a million times and i appreciate that this must be pretty wearing as an actual psl supporter. so: DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Actually I'm very bullish on the prospects for explicitly Marxist political parties outside the Democratic Party. I think Sanders, and the constituency he approaches, represents much more of a threat to the Democratic Party than Cruz or Trump or their own demographic irrelevance pose to the Republicans. I would not be surprised at all if young voters began leaving the Democrats for a new political formation (whether or not Sanders wins), while the weight of the bourgeoisie found a place in a socially liberal Democrat party. the question this raises is why would we expect this new formation to take the form of a socialist programme rather than a sanders- or even corbyn-esque reformist tendency. the ideological ground is there - austerity for example is excoriated by much of mainstream economics itself, including publicly prominent figures like krugman. there's also the threat that the right will be able to secure a critical mass of disaffected white support, though this is weaker just due to the demographic numbers in the united states. even if you think a keynesian programme would fail, that failure could then lead to a right-wing reaction as it would be seen as a failure of the 'left'. how does/should the PSL anticipate avoiding either of these outcomes in favour of a radical left programme?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Grover Furr has no academic credentials as a historian and works outside of peer review. These are, after all, bourgeois constructions— perhaps all the more reason to believe what he has to say? Food for thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Sure, it's probably more important to focus on Furr's credentials than the actual content of the books (he's still a tenured professor of literature, for whatever that's worth) - as for "working outside of peer review," I'm not sure what prevents Furr's peers from disputing the validity of the archival material and primary sources he uses exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
specifically of medieval literature, so he is at least history-adjacent
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:lol why do i even bother You link a theoretical tract without the reply of it's critics. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ But that doesn't even matter to me as much. Anarchists correctly argue that after 1917, the Bolsheviks were monopolizing power at the expense of workers and that their policies represented a petty bourgeoisie counter revolution. This counter revolution was resisted during the Kronstadt Uprising and continued until its success with the destruction of the Worker's Opposition and Alexander Shliapnikov's plans to institute syndicalist economic reforms. The counter revolution succeeds in the transformation of the Soviet Union into a terror state by 1923. https://libcom.org/library/counter-revolution-soviet-union-gregori-maximov It was a failed revolution. Continuing to talk about it as though it was a success is what has crippled the left for the last 30 years. Learn from it's mistakes and successes but don't try to emulate the abject failure that it encompassed. The vanguard idea is an abject failure. The Leninist perspective to see the revolutionary party as the leadership of the working class, introducing socialist consciousness into a class which cannot generate itself is no different than the Elite Theory proponents of fascism in practice, with the same brutal results. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/sech3.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Why is it bad to be a nationalist and a socialist at the same time if it doesn't result in racism (ie hatred towards member's of one's own nation because of their race)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Why is it bad to be a nationalist and a socialist at the same time if it doesn't result in racism (ie hatred towards member's of one's own nation because of their race) This is like asking if the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one believes in the Republic while the other believes in democracy
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:You link a theoretical tract without the reply of it's critics. there isn't a link here. and how exactly is an exhaustively researched political economy "theoretical"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
swampman posted:Your ideas are the weird ones, as they are based on propaganda. You can find all of this propaganda in the "secret speech" of 1956 given by Khrushchev, and in Timothy Snyder's book Bloodlands which is the greatest attempt yet to make the USSR out to be "as bad as" the Nazis. The USSR was not as bad as the Nazis but they were very bad and they are responsible for hindering socialism for at least another two generations. History has shown that the way the Bolsheviks organized and turned toward eliminationism meant that Stalin was the logical successor to Lenin. That doesn't mean I am endorsing Leninism. It means I am pointing out that there was something wrong in a political organization that allows people like Stalin to get power. quote:I strongly suggest you order the two Grover Furr books I've linked in this thread. They examine and debunk every revisionist claim made by Snyder and Khrushchev. "CIA agent Khrushchev" is hyperbole but refers to Khrushchev's betrayal of socialism This is the problem. You had one person responsible for the national direction. Betrayal or whatever fiction you want to make up for it, this is Leninism in practice. If you have a problem with the evolving practice of Leninism then reject Leninism. "Marx was, in fact, the first to stress that the significance of a theory cannot be grasped independently of the historical and social practice it inspires and initiates, to which it gives rise, in which it prolongs itself and under cover of which a given practice seeks to justify itself. "Who, today, would dare proclaim that the only significance of Christianity for history is to be found in reading unaltered versions of the Gospels or that the historical practice of various Churches over a period of some 2,000 years can teach us nothing fundamental about the significance of this religious movement? A 'faithfulness to Marx' which would see the historical fate of Marxism as something unimportant would be just as laughable. It would in fact be quite ridiculous. Whereas for the Christian the revelations of the Gospels have a transcendental kernel and an intemporal validity, no theory could ever have such qualities in the eyes of a Marxist. To seek to discover the meaning of Marxism only in what Marx wrote (while keeping quiet about what the doctrine has become in history) is to pretend - in flagrant contradiction with the central ideas of that doctrine - that real history doesn't count and that the truth of a theory is always and exclusively to be found 'further on.' It finally comes to replacing revolution by revelation and the understanding of events by the exegesis of texts." ["The Fate of Marxism," pp. 75-84 The Anarchist Papers, Dimitrios Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 77] quote:with the lies of the "secret speech". Considering that Khrushchev had the heir apparent Beria murdered, then began concessions to the bloodthirsty Americans, who by then had a decade of practice staging coups, their maws still running with the blood of Korea, Iran and Guatemala, the same Americans who had literally funded the Nazi invasion of the USSR less than twenty years prior... I would say the CIA could not have been more proud of Khrushchev in 1956. So your theory is that socialism as espoused by Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism requires an eliminationist dictator to rule and if by chance one of his lieutenants survives the purges and takes over but is not ideologically pure enough the entire plan falls apart. This is what you want to emulate. Looks like its a garbage theory in practice. Time to move on. quote:Why do you find it so unlikely that the agents of imperialism have been successful at promoting a revisionist account of the history of the Soviet Union? There are many accounts of the Soviet Union proposed by dozens of ideological streams as well as neutral and other academics. I am open to reading them all. But you are proposing that I take people who are the equivalent of the Soviet Union's David Irving as the only true source of information on the Soviet Union despite the fact that anarchists who are not imperialists come to the same conclusions. The Russian revolution failed. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH6.html quote:If Stalin is the greatest enemy America faced in the last century, don't you think there would be a lot of lies told about Stalin in America and among bourgeois expats who fled socialism? Stalin wasn't the greatest enemy America ever faced. Stalin's crimes against humanity exist independent of cheap propaganda or the sacrificial efforts made by the Soviets to defeat their former Nazi strategic allies. quote:Unfortunately, the greatest reinforcer of these lies are not the propagandists themselves, but average people like yourself who are satisfied with their current understanding of political ideology, who have already incorporated the lies into their politics. This is usually what happens when politics are not a matter of survival but of bourgeois narcissism and fealty to class comforts - not trying to be personal or mean spirited I am not satisfied with my current understanding of anything. That's the point. You are ossified in a nightmare fantasy about a mass murderer and his garbage political organization and nothing seems to rouse you from it to move on and learn from mistakes of the past. Let's not kid ourselves about bourgeois narcissism and fealty to class comforts (you work in an office like everyone else) and try to actually learn. Homework Explainer posted:there isn't a link here. and how exactly is an exhaustively researched political economy "theoretical" http://tinyurl.com/j29lsbr The text explains the hairsplitting that your author made to argue that there was no new class controlling workers. Top City Homo fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
*is a Crimean Turk dying of thirst in a cattle car* "At least they aren't fascists amirite everybody"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
"I might be starving to death because comrade Stalin sealed the village to punish counter-revolutionary activity, but at least he isn't Hitler!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
"As an Estonian, nothing made me happier than to see my home invaded and burned before I was sent to Siberia for having an ethnic name. Long live the People's Revolution!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
do you think anyone will pay attention to you if you continue to post or what
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
ayy yo, i need some homework explained, this the right place??
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:ayy yo, i need some homework explained, this the right place?? if it's history i can help you out
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:ayy yo, i need some homework explained, this the right place?? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
zeal posted:if it's history i can help you out nah i'm good for that
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:41 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 21:12
|
|