|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
He did a sick youtube essay on putin's castle
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Soapy_Bumslap posted:"Purged" as an ominous outcome is so funny, Deng Xiaoping got purged more times before noon than most people would be in their whole life I thought this was the whole problem with the "Great Terror" of 1937-38 and the Moscow trials and such, that purging meant being executed instead of just the usual public criticism, firing and maybe having to go away for a while AFancyQuestionMark has issued a correction as of 13:21 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
This probably isn't the right thread for me to be making GBS threads up with this, but I don't believe this whole "the problem with the purges is that they didn't go far enough" narrative. As if removing enough people would eventually leave you with only ideologically disciplined true hardcore stalinists that wouldn't have done liberalization and lead to Gorbachev and perestroika. I think this is incredible wishful thinking and is a pretty anti-materalist understanding of history I don't think the macro historical conditions of the USSR would be majorly different with or without the purges, with or without Stalin at the helm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
Maybe I am an idiot and Great Man Stalin really was the crucial factor, but idk, the evolution of actual USSR state policy was a result of experimentation and adjustment to conditions of the ground, brought about by collective planning by the government bureaucracy. There wasn't really any great unifying theory dictated plan imposed from top down. It was my understanding that collectivization, private ownership and markets came in and out of favor multiple times as a response to organic developments
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:the cultural Revolution was a huge success for China so idk if you are right. to your last paragraph : does Stalin even win ww2 without putting liberals in reeducation in the 1930s? he seemed to think it was necessary I mean, all the main backers of the Cultural Revolution ended up removed post-Mao, and Deng managed to get himself reinstated and institute market reforms and "30% wrong" assessment too, and it ended up working fine so idk how much the Cultural Revolution really mattered in the very long run
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
It's all class relations and material conditions anyway
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
This discussion is probably better in the modern history thread, but I'll probably get clowned on there so
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
Sure. So was the USSR under NEP and under Khruschev. It isn't clear that the USSR collapse and perestroika were a consequence of insufficient purges
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I'm saying that there was a hell of a lot of reaction in developed societies in the early 20th century. Most visibly so in those that had communist revolutions. Not sure what that has to do with shooting up Tuchachevsky, Bukharin and Zinoviev tbh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:??? that is literally the most reasonable conclusion!!! But why? How is Deng different from Khrushev?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:deng was a communist But Khrushev wasn't?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Is there a cargo cult understanding of materialism going on here or something? I'm trying to parse these takes and coming up empty. The idea that governments rise and fall simply because this or that leader is influenced by this or that idea or cultulral force or "soft power" rather than because of societal, economic factors and developments in the class makeup of the country is anti-materialist. This is not cargo cult. Longing for jeans and pizza hut is not the cause. It is a symptom. AFancyQuestionMark has issued a correction as of 15:24 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
I'll stop making GBS threads up the thread now
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I'm still a little astounded at the idea that reactionary violence is somehow "anti-materialist", whatever that word is supposed to mean. I didn't deny reactionary violence or said it was anti materialist, I meant the stuff on Gorbachev, jeans, perestroika, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
I made a post in the CSPAM modern history thread, let's discuss it there. Also, please don't call me a liberal 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:If it's all the same, I can follow the conversation here, is there a particular reason to start anew in another thread? I don't want to drown out ukraine war news and discussion
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:deng didn’t throw Mao and the party’s historical legitimacy under the bus But he sort of did, by saying "70% right, 30% wrong" and eliminating the Gang of Four and Hua he did essentially the same as the Secret Speech and removing the Anti-Party Group. It's a difference in degree not in kind.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
alright, if you insist I can try dual thread drifting for a bit. People here say Gorbachev and cos decision were influenced by liberal idealism and had he and his cohort been purged and ideologically disciplined leaders been in place, the USSR wouldn't have fallen apart. But why is it that at that particular historical moment, so many liberal-influenced leaders were in charge in so many eastern block nations? Why were they able to rise and not the hardliners? Isn't it because of the economic pressure and internal changes in class composition? AFancyQuestionMark has issued a correction as of 17:03 on Apr 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
also, relatedly, do people agree that the charges of trotskyist/leftist/rightist espionage, industrial sabotage and etc. that were presented at the big 30s moscow trials were trumped up? because that's kind of an important dimension to this discussion imo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:there were actually a lot of hardliners in charge of the soviet bloc in the 70s and 80s, poland, romania, and east germany remained hardliner to the bitter end. the rise of liberalism and reformism in the soviet bloc imo largely stems from two things. firstly, these governments were imposed on the nations of eastern europe by the soviet union after ww2 and therefore had lots of legitimacy issues in their eyes of citizenship for their entire existence. however, with the backing of the soviet union and the red army, hardliners were able to keep their hands on the tillers of state until the deaths of brezhnev and andropov. gorby comes to power and starts throwing legitimacy and power to the reformers across the soviet bloc while making it clear to the hardliners that he isn't going to lift a finger to save them (although brezhnev was the one to refuse to send the red army in to back up jaruzelski in poland). liberals and reformers were thus able to gradually wrest control of the states away from the communists and/or ferment national resistance to communist rule. the collapse of communism in other countries however spelled the end of the hardliner regimes who were economically and politically dependent on the bloc for their continued existence yeah but why did the hardliners need to wrestle for power? what made liberals so appealing in comparison? that's where the major economic pressures and class composition factors come in, and that's the actual root cause imo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:lol lib so were they real? did bukharin and trotsky lie to me? i just want to know
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
I recently read an account by a high up Menshevik guy (Dan) of his experiences during the civil war. The harassment/repression of the party members described there, even the eventual Cheka arrests, imprisonment and exile seemed to me to be mostly very lenient and justified considering the civil war context, foreign imperialist intervention and extreme reactionary violence at the time. The worst stuff described was clearly caused by individual petiness, war-time uncertainty and general bureaucratic dysfunction. I came away with a very positive impression of the Bolshevik "repression" apparatus. That's what makes it so hard to square for me that it was decided to dial up the brutality in the 1930s, during a time of peace and when the economic conditions were so much better in comparison. What made them go from letting mensheviks roam around freely in their prison block and otherwise operate freely on the outside, with the worst punishment being exile or internal displacement, to shooting trotskyists and bukharinites en mass? Things seemed to be going well, why not just expel them from the CPSU? I just don't get it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:🇵🇱🇩🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇫🇮🇷🇴🇯🇵 Ok, but does that mean there were a lot of foreign directed saboteurs and spies among the main mass of those purged? I thought that wasn't the case? If it wasn't, I still don't get why such extreme measures were necessary? Like, all of these countries literally invaded and actively fought in the Russian Civil War, when purge/repression conditions were much more lenient, and it didn't seem to matter then. Why change tactics?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 18:26
|
|