(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
It was a dark day when the Religous Socialist Congress splintered into Christian, Buddhist and Islamic factionalism.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
cant believe it doesnt include everybody's fav, chairman gonzalo
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 10:47
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:The Bolsheviks had sugar daddies too. But this person is a loony so I think they'd just say that proves their point. everything is wrong 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 12:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MalvinaCarelord/status/1448846675200577538
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:i like/respect you too, hot witch divorcee I thought hot witch divorcee was referring to Grimes, and needless to say was pretty confused! Wait.. is hot witch divorcee Grimes? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Yadoppsi posted:Thinking about this quote and figured this was the best thread to ask in. Does anyone know of a book that explores the movement of capital between the 1st and 2nd estates during the transition from feudalism to capitalism? the other thread mentioned a few and it's kinda tangential but Ellen Wood's The Origin of Capitalism is pretty good
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fentpressed/status/1449054506579374083?s=12
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
wasnt sure where else to share this but i wanted to give a shoutout to this lost legend of american labor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/morescodudu/status/1449133647773245445?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
did the Soviets ever consider themselves to have developed a socialist mode of production? I know Lenin still considered the USSR as being still in the process of transitioning in a capitalist economy, but im unclear on how they viewed things after him
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
In Training posted:wasnt sure where else to share this but i wanted to give a shoutout to this lost legend of american labor. a letter full of dead flies is a hell of a thing to give and receive
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:did the Soviets ever consider themselves to have developed a socialist mode of production? I know Lenin still considered the USSR as being still in the process of transitioning in a capitalist economy, but im unclear on how they viewed things after him stalin proclaimed at a point that exploitation had ceased in the soviet union. i believe he meant this, correctly, in the technical sense that the lack of private ownership meant that all surplus labor was now under the workers' control (as enacted by the workers' state). in many ways the soviet system put into practice the means of surplus allocation and payment sketched out at the end of critique of the gotha programme elsewhere stalin writes (and others have put more snappily, like with althusser's "there is no socialist mode of production") that socialism is an entire historical epoch in which the working class develops and exerts its power. so whether something is "socialism" falls more on which class is calling the shots rather than what a workday looks like or what kind of parameters are being weighed across spreadsheets
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
how long was the NEP supposed to last, if its goal was to develop soviet productive forces from feudalism into a mature form of capitalism? was there a stated deadline or was it just meant to go on until it’s goals were achieved, since that seems like a multi decade project at the bare minimum
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:the other thread mentioned a few and it's kinda tangential but Ellen Wood's The Origin of Capitalism is pretty good From googling it looks like Patrick Wyman's "The Verge" is also similar to what I'm looking for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 10:39
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:did the Soviets ever consider themselves to have developed a socialist mode of production? I know Lenin still considered the USSR as being still in the process of transitioning in a capitalist economy, but im unclear on how they viewed things after him Full socialism/communism, like fusion power, has always been 20 years away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:how long was the NEP supposed to last, if its goal was to develop soviet productive forces from feudalism into a mature form of capitalism? was there a stated deadline or was it just meant to go on until it’s goals were achieved, since that seems like a multi decade project at the bare minimum the NEP (sort of like dengism) could work as long as capitalist countries were willing to trade with the USSR. it would have crashed and died when the great depression hit and everyone went into protectionist mode. the transition to socialist five year plans from the NEP came at an extremely fortuitous moment like when the depression happened a lot of countries to a certain extent switched to some sorta state directed industrial policy, the soviets just did it harder and better than everyone else (soviet agricultural policy on the other hand was a disaster around this time) mila kunis has issued a correction as of 16:19 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
FrancisFukyomama posted:how long was the NEP supposed to last, if its goal was to develop soviet productive forces from feudalism into a mature form of capitalism? was there a stated deadline or was it just meant to go on until it’s goals were achieved, since that seems like a multi decade project at the bare minimum I would risk that the best answer to that was "as little as possible". Lenin loving hated it. Stalin and Trotsky fully agreed that it totally sucked. However, the idea made inroads in the party, they voted for it and Lenin reined in most of the bullshit with great effect Looking back it can be argued that there is a certain degree of merit on Bukharin's idea if we look at what Deng concluded in China, but I think the NEP as an adjustment policy after war communism is a better way to look at it. Lenin agreed to it because, by his own perspective and theoretical understanding, the situation was hosed in terms of development accumulation - Russia lost too much capital development, too quickly. In commercial and diplomatic isolation, Lenin's side disagreed with Trotsky's that war communism could be switched into an economic accumulation program in a snap of the fingers. Simply put, there was too much damage and weariness for an industrial effort at 5th gear to happen. At that point, the Soviet Union needed capital and could only rely on itself in the foreseeable short-term, which is where Bukharin and the Right Tendency happened to be right by virtue of the situation, not by theory. However, to Lenin's great merit and Bukharin's dismay, he adapted the NEP to work much differently than intended: Lenin agreed to the NEP because he wanted to put bread on the table for the Soviet people first and foremost, then reorganizing the surplus value into development; Bukharin wanted to use it entirely for accumulation. Bukharin levied theory to argue that only by that way a socialist mode could be achieved, while Stalin and Trotsky ripped him a new one by saying that he wanted to institute a regime of party magnates. Lenin saved his rear end there more than one time. The NEP wouldn't and couldn't last because both the best soviet leadership and masses were committed in a revolutionary phase, which got Bukharin dunked on repeatedly. NEPmen were disliked and reviled by the people, and when some of them started acting like capitalist bosses, Stalin got into his best period as a thinker of socialism (imho) and started blasting the Right Tendency non-stop for doing poo poo like, among other things, ranching pigs in Muslim majority regions of the USSR (because pigs were profitable). As things improved, so did the means to further reorganize the economy into a socialist mode of production, which by then had plenty of support
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:The NEP wouldn't and couldn't last because both the best soviet leadership and masses were committed in a revolutionary phase, which got Bukharin dunked on repeatedly. NEPmen were disliked and reviled by the people, and when some of them started acting like capitalist bosses hence the term, nepotism!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:hence the term, nepotism! holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Big NEP was a necessary but temporary sacrifice to guarantee big life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:hence the term, nepotism! poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
tfw the random russian guy from crimera turns out to be a bigger stalinist than you in graduate school
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
big NEPples, big life
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary? No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary? Probably not, but I think people overrate the problems caused by it sometimes. Glantz describes the massive shortages of equipment the Red Army was facing on the lead up to Barbarossa. They were in the middle of a major re-equipping and reorganizing effort to bring their forces in line with Axis capabilities. Everyone knew a war was coming, but the Soviets figured they had another year or so, because they assumed the fascists had correctly determined the scale of the reserves available to the Red Army. In fact, the Germans had not, and instead planned for a much shorter war, and therefore were ready sooner than the Soviets had determined their enemy would need to properly invade. This isn't to downplay the failures caused by a shortage of skilled officers. Almost certainly would have shrunk the losses they would have had to absorb, but Barbarossa would have still been a disaster. Most people don't realize the Nazis had a decisive manpower advantage in 1941, with about 3.8 million axis troops to the Soviets 2.9. edit: thinking this over, I think I should make it clear this was on the actual front itself. Obviously across the Soviet Union the number active duty personnel was much bigger than that, but Russia's got big borders, couldn't have them all in the west at once. After a haymaker like Barbarossa, it was going to be a bloody business rebuilding the Red Army even if its officer corps hadn't been gutted. Lasting Damage has issued a correction as of 03:48 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
the point of a purge is to keep out traitors and counterrevolutionaries. assuming that some sort of purge was necessary, which considering some of the rogues and shitheads we know were purged let's be real it probably was, its really more of a question of did it go too far and remove marginal people who might have been fine without the big shitheads around. regardless, real life isn't like hearts of iron or whatever where you just have troop number who are all loyal to you and fight at 100%, sure the purges caused problems but there's a very real chance it wasn't nearly the problem if there were entire battalions led by turncoats remember thats one of the ways the CPC was able to beat the much better equipped and often better manned armies funded and equipped by japan, they had a key general or two that was able to turn on them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
I look forward to the day I’m purged for not being sufficiently leftist since posting isn’t praxis it shouldn’t count as wrecking either
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary? Yes, it was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/viktor_revmir/status/1450457690833051657?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I am reading Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Gotta ask, were the Great Purges really necessary? sources say maybe
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
*stares through the fog of propaganda and secrecy with a steely gaze and the light of the immortal science* maybe
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
look when you make your chief executive a dude who spent his entire adult life in a morass of secrecy and paranoia you might get some overly-enthusiastic purges
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
i think guyovitch has written on the purges of the party but the officer corp purge should have hit all the marshals and generals it didn't instead of the ones it did
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
On February 1, 2021, Trong attended a press conference. Trong said "I am not in great health [...] I am old and I want to rest, but the Congress has elected me so I will comply with my duty to serve as a party member."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2021 16:55
|
|