Ok Tankies, tell me why you like this guy...

why do tanks assume everyone who disagrees with them are narchos?

He robbed banks to fund the Bolsheviks. How much of a capitalist bootlicker are you to find that objectionable?

Apparently the anarkiddies suddenly care about laws and banks when it comes to Stalin.

Lmao

Can you imagine being so childish you think anarchy is a viable ideology and being so bitter that you base your politics on your resentment of socialists who accomplished more for socialist projects than any anarchist ever?

The ones who bitch the most are almost always anarkiddies.

Then there are retarded leftcoms.

Truly a modern Robin Hood

hey guys what if stalinism and anarchism are equally retarded?

Sup libshit?

Ok, i know, i meant for a dramatically longer period of time. Allow me to reword, what if another stalinist rather than Khrushchev had taken power?

And here come the leftcoms who just sit in their armchairs.

I don't like him, just like I don't idealize any fucking psychopath that is glorified by history, but I put him in the context.

Somehow it's not an issue worshiping Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Julius Caesar and all those faggots, somehow it's even getting hip to reckognize the economic growth that hitler supposedly brought to germany (exagerated lies); but the capitalist propaganda doesn't allow Stalin any glory.

So yeah, even if I despise the guy just like the other faggots, I certainly become a tankie when confronted with normies.

The USSR would still be standing.

...

Thats not a success tbh

It would.

If you have any successful anarchist projects point them out.

No shit. He robbed banks and extorted bourgies profiting exploiting others. Malcom X was also a bank robber. Why do you even care? Are you not an anarchist?

Yes, they needed nationalistic policies. The country was nearly FUCKING DESTROYED by fascists. You need a figure and propaganda to inspire people.

Socialism would continue to develop. Please stop the 'It was state capitalism, not real socialism!' meme, it just makes leftists look utopian and dishonest. How can you dismantle the bureaucracy when imperialists are trying to sabotage and invade you the first chance they get?

Ok fair enough. Even I think that his paranoia with the purges was excessive. I don't support that, but I know why he did it with terrorists and spies trying to infiltrate the government. I think the purges ultimately lead the USSR to becoming revisionist.

Yes he wanted to achieve communism. Listen to this: zizekpodcast.com/2016/04/25/ziz085-stalin-paradox-of-power-31-03-2015/
Even in private the archives show the Soviet officials wanted to implement communist policies. They weren't proto-bourgies who wanted to exploit people.

Here's the thing about anarchists. I think they are revolutionary. They really do believe in communism and bettering people's lives. They have the greatest revolutionary spirit.

But at the same time they swallow every single piece of bourgeois propaganda about the left and the Soviet Union. They try to appeal to normies by denouncing everything the left has ever done, and they advertise their system as "Hey, this is communism, but in my system nothing bad ever happens, and nobody has to die! I'm not evil like those damn Stalinists who killed 300 gorillion!"

Anarchism is not possible without socialism. Do you know why the Catalan revolution died? Lack of bureaucracy. You can't have anarchy when fascists are coming at you WITH FUCKING TANKS. Even the CNT had to resort to forced labour and the help of the USSR.

This board needs purging of fucking liberals!

Because he, with the help of his like-minded comrades of course, created the first socialist society on Earth. Most of the Bolsheviks did not believe the USSR could build Socialism after the rest of the European nations had their revolutions crushed, but Stalin was willing to crush capitalism and build the society of the future no matter the challenges. There were no socialist societies before this point, so he and his comrades had to figure out how to do it essentially from scratch with no examples. And yet they took a pseudo-capitalist, pseudo-feudal country with a tremendously backwards, uneducated population and a tiny working class, and turned it into the world's first post-capitalist society which destroyed fascism, turned half of Europe red, and provided education and relief from want for its entire working population. Was the system he created perfect? Hell no. But that doesn't mean his attempt was not admirable.

why do tanks rush to defend a failure of a nation state? i mean yeah the USSR got tons of shit done but it still failed. sitting in a corner chanting "purge the narchos, stalin is my real dad" does nothing to change this.

...

You're exactly right about the anarchists. I fault them for naive, never that they aren't revolutionary. Like you said, they like claim their communists with nothing bad happening because nothing will ever happen with anarchists. They'll always get crushed just like the CNT.

Where are your lasting revolutions now?

actually north Korea ans Cuba are workers paradises and will vangaurd the next revolutions you fucking anarkiddy

You forgot the false flag.

Tankies are like Trots in that they have some good ideas but their autisitic fellating of literally everything 60 year dead men said and did is both creepy and really annoying.

Stalin was more anti-nationalist then Lenin. He wanted to collectivize his own fucking country into the Soviet Union while Lenin drew the lines between ethnicities - Stalins nationalism was a necessity resulting from the fascist invasion and was entirely civic.

I gotta admit, I do like how Stalin shuffled around all the Ethnicities of Russia.

Stalin even openly derided Lenin as a liberal nationalist whilst he was still alive. He wanted a fully centralized nation where everyone would simply be a socialist citizen and the old nationalities would fade away, whilst Lenin wanted self-government for all ethnicities. In the end we got the half-baked compromise that was the federal USSR.

why are all tankies clinically retarded?

Then don't post it in a bait-thread, smashie. And, at least, ask Communists.

It's a weird question.

It was hideously unlikely for Communism to happen - state to wither away, to become superfluous - during Cold War. Hence we can talk only about emergence of State Socialism during that period. Except it already existed. Both should be obvious, no?

Are you asking "what would happen after successful World Revolution"? Or "what would've been the next steps after 50s for USSR"? Because that's two different questions.

General idea of next goals was outlined by Stalin in his last works:
1) Further Centralization of economy. That meant primarily gradual nationalization of kolkhozs, but - judging by subsequent technological development - also networking Soviet economy into one proto-internet for GosPlan to get real-time updates and phase out a lot of bureaucrats out of decision-making.
2) Increase of free time for education and culture (4-hour workday) to allow general public to participate in politics more actively (read - more direct democracy and grass-root initiatives).

I'd say, by 1970s USSR could've transitioned to monthly voting by population on politics and some sort of PCs for general population. Fully automated factories by 1980s and had new expansion to the West in 1990s. Thus, by 2017 we could've had deeply fascist (and highly religious) Oceania (I hope you got the reference) and gradual industrialization of India and, hopefully, Africa too. Both factors would've still warranted existence of State Socialism. So - still no Communism.

Then why were his actual policies always the exact opposite? Why didn't Kruschev and Brezhnev move in this direction?

Not as annoying as Saint Max retards or "google bookchin"

Literally not a single argument against Stalin here.

cool strawman

You can't stay here.

but your rage is so amusing

...

Why aren't you giving specifics to avoid misunderstandings?
Why do you want people to guess what you actually meant?

...

There was never any sort of move towards really short workdays in the USSR. The USSR worked top down, not bottom up.

Isn't this pure Great Man Theory?

B A R B A R O S S A
A
R
B
A
R
O
S
S
A

Are you blind? We are talking about stuff being suggested in 1952, as a goal to work for during next decade or two.

Fuck off.

When I'm talking about Stalin I mean Stalinist faction. Take a look at "Anti"-Party group, for example.

Stalin effectively hijacked communism. Lenin never envisioned an authoritarian government and the NEP was actually quite good but Stalin destroyed that. Stalin also got into a pact with Hitler whuch left borders defenseless and caused needless death. Furthermore the gulags housed many innocent people and communists who had their lives ruined because of Stalin. He tortured and destroyed the works of Burkhain just because he enjoyed popularity with the people. Did the Soviet Union enjoy growth during his reign, sure. But the same can be said of Nazi Germany. The real question is whether he followed the path of communism, which is control by the people, and on that Stalin failed miserably.

The old "Good Lenin, Bad Stalin" meme. Stalin's government structure was virtually identical to what Lenin had intended. You had elections at a local level which led to representatives who chose from among themselves who should represent the locality at the higher levels of government and so on from the bottom up, modeled on the Paris Commune. Stalin didn't make the system any more authoritarian or any such nonsense. He did create universal suffrage and such though.
The NEP was a stopgap measure which was decidedly failing by the end of the 20s, which almost everyone in the party acknowledged. The only question was what should replace it. As the countryside was run along capitalist lines whilst the industry was socialist, the ways to realign the two with each other either involved market restoration in the industry or the collectivization of agriculture to integrate it into the planning. Stalin chose the latter, as any sensible socialist would have.
Extending the borders further to the west to create more distance between the heartland and the inevitable fascist foe is bad? Stalin did misjudge Hitler's timetable, but that is hardly a structural flaw or any such thing, merely a misjudgment.
Most people who got sent to the gulag were released. Figures like Solzhenitsyn, whom the West likes to pretend were innocent, were literal Nazi sympathizers and reactionaries. Hell, there are more prisoners in US prisons right now than there ever were in the gulags, even when they were stuffed with Nazi captives. Western propaganda about gulags is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black.
No, he was killed because he was essentially advocating capitalist restoration and Nazi Germany had fabricated evidence that many leading figures in the USSR were in league with them which they then "leaked" to known Soviet spies. Regardless, the purges did go too far and the deaths of many Bolsheviks were regrettable.
Except the USSR created a new, stable, post-capitalist economic system from scratch whilst the Nazis just borrowed tons of money to create a giant bubble on purpose and then declared war so they wouldn't have to pay up.
Did he? His constitution gave universal suffrage, his policies destroyed all remnants of capitalism and instituted a classless society. People were actively involved in the decision making process at a local level and could contact their elected representatives with their specific needs. Stalin's new constitution was widely distributed to all people of the Soviet Union and amended several times based on feedback gathered from the entire population. Compared to the fiction of Western 'democracy', he did quite well.
Stalin wasn't a saint who never made a mistake in his life, but you're slurping up that bourgeois kool-aid pretty intensely. As Lenin said:

The great man theory isn't completely wrong, just naive.

A criminal is defined by whatever the state doesn't like

lumpenproles are uninterested in revolution, or against it, whatever. A liberal college student convinced they'll one day be a billionaire to boss around the other lowly people he's surrounded by is as much a lumpen as the thief who never wants to stop stealing

I'm always sort of torn on this. Take Alexander the Great, for instance. Was it incredibly likely that some sort of Greek crusade against decaying Persia would happen in the 4th century BC regardless of whether or Alexander existed or not? Definitely. But would anyone other than Alexander of Macedon armed with the elite army created by Philip of Macedon have possessed the combination of rampant megalomania and strategic genius to take this punitive war all the way to India and then deliberately colonize places as far away as the Indus with a bunch of Greeks who kept influencing these distant regions for centuries? Probably not.

I like that he built brain bank cities on the far side of the moon we never see.

That's basically the modern historian view as well.

...

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03a.htm

OP is on Holla Forums levels of bad faith in his argument. Come on.

Or rather, question.