Turned Russia from a land of pot-smoking Trotskyites to an industrial powerhouse capable of stopping fascism from...

watch that edge

lazy much?

HELL YEAH

this sounds cooler than you intended tbh

Look, with Stalin, it always comes down to excess deaths. How many happened under his reign?

Reminds me how shit like the Black Book of Communism counted every person that died under Mao, even of old age, as a killing Mao was personally responsible for

Good post

I specifically said "excess deaths".

While I'm at it, might as well ask, is there a thorough rebutal of BBC?

eh stalin wasn't that bad, he could have been less opressive though
(don't tell me you really think bukharin was really part of a trotskyite fascist plot to destroy the soviet union and give the bourgies their toothbrush)

...

There's no space for humor in socialism.

There is no room for slacking in socialism, kulak.

Get back to work.

My man, Bukharin was a booster of the line of keeping and even expanding concessions to foreign capitalists and was quite enthusiastic about the NEP.

Wow, "father of Mark Soc", you can't make this shit up.
msuweb.montclair.edu/~lebelp/JonathanBeanNikolaiBukharinAndTheNewEconomicPolicy1997.pdf

As for the point about whether he was part of a "Trotskyite-fascist plot" this is the part where people simply argue from incredulity rather then responding to the claims themselves. Any well-read historian knows that the Nazis basically used spies and saboteurs in every single country they invaded or planned to invade, that's how so many European countries fell seemingly without much resistance. I don't think the USSR was different but it was harder for them to do their work openly.

You might want to take a look some of Furr's shorter-works on Bukharin:
clogic.eserver.org/2010/furr.pdf
clogic.eserver.org/2007/Furr_Bobrov.pdf

At first I thought you meant the BBC but yes there is a detailed-rebuttal of the black book and has been for sometime:
archive.is/p0zxQ
The editor of the book even admitted there were basic mathematical mistakes in it:
archive.is/3cu6d

Ya know, I hate to make this an "I'm not here to educate you" moment but I can't imagine being such a first day communist/first day leftist kid that I haven't seen the rebuttals to this work of garbage.

Further reading material:
monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/

Nazi intelligence was a joke that got clowned on by every country they fought. The Nazis were good at rallying the local fascists in the countries they had already invaded i.e. the Ustasha and the Banderaites.

Whether it was particularly good which I think is a judgement call is irrelevant to the fact that they had agents and quislings in place in every single-country they invaded.

Austria was so badly compromised that the Nazis didn't even have to fire a shot when they annexed Austria. It's also widely-thought that the Nazis had Tsar Boris poisoned because he had become inconvenient despite the formal alliance. Not long after that the Nazis occupied Hungary and its large Jewish population was packed up and sent to the concentration camps.

Those are just two examples but I think its pretty clear that the saboteur work generally began before the Nazi invasions in the countries they invaded and the USSR was on their list of nations to invade. Many of the defendants in the Moscow Trials had been abroad and Weimar Germany probably had the closest economic ties of any Western nation with the USSR which made the task of infiltration easier. I don't think it would've been particularly hard for even an incompetent intelligence agency backed up by other intelligence agencies to make the connections they did.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove tbh that you don't think that Nazi intelligence was good enough to make alliances with subversive elements in the USSR or that you think that they'd invade first and worry about rallying the quisling forces later? When we now know that German intelligence was working with Polish (for a time obviously) and Japanese intelligence as well. The Japanese probably had the real shoe-in since they cultivated some high-profile defectors and really had an edge given the previous border wars and the city of Harbin that was filled with white exiles, intelligence agents from all over the world, and shared a border with the USSR.

From what I can tell Japanese intelligence was fairly good to my knowledge they were the only intelligence service that predicted that the Nazis would lose if they fought a war against the Soviets.

I cry everytime:

youtube.com/watch?v=h9Y61dec4FQ

miss me with that double blackmail
I know that stalin didn't kill 60 million, that gulags weren't death camps, the kulaks were assholes etc. etc. but that doesn't mean I have to be a stalin apologist.

fucking hell, how do people think like this

marxists literally killed other marxists

tell me who your rolemodel is so i can spit at him

go to prison.

you must be the kinda guy that would make a crackhead dealer the president of his hippie commune in some abandoned building and call it a struggle against global capitalism.

I'd love to see the insides of your skull, comrade.

It would be a vacuum

When u kill more of ur own people than the ebul fascist invaders you tried to say you beat singlehandedly

Kill yourself crypto-fascist LARPer. This was against Lenin's wishes, who fucking HATED personality cults, while your daddy Stalin loved them and used Lenin's legacy to build his own. Kill yourself

Lenin wanted to be buried alongside his mother in Leningrad. So that's sort of debatable

Holla Forums is growing fast and always has lots of newcomers, we should be comprehending. SJWs kept up the "I'm not here to educate you" nonsense for years, and now we got Trump.

Come on, man.

Kulaks definitely deserved it, the problems is the poor bastards who weren't kulaks.

It is like you want to go to gulag or something.

The epitome of stalinism was the condemnation of Stalin as the ultimate traitor of the people.

Is that you Zizek?

No it's me, the Common Sense.

why didn't stalin have a problem with bukharin, when he needed an ally against trotsky?

In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[3][12]
use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".

(although to be honest anyone who hordes grain during a famine deserves to get his shit confiscated, and depending on how severe the famine is, shot.

All I want in this world is people who glorify death squads and slave labour be subjected to death squads and slave labour

soviet records show that most gulag, stays where like 5 years long and politcal prisoners where rare, (most of them were criminals).
it was mismanaged im not going to defend the
cover up of the melt down of chernobyl (gorbachov had to learn from the swedes that the reactor melted down)
really makes me think
a good use of space, they could make the apartments look nicer

...

...

I'd take a commieblock over freezing to death as a homeless person tbqh

And isn't it natural to assume that if the people living in those blocks control those blocks then they'll want to improve the aesthetics? I dunno, "they're ugly" always seemed like a non-argument to me.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php

why not just go live in the zoo? comfier than a commieblock.

You know he was a pedophile, right? He knocked up a 13 year old.

Good for him

Hero-worship is Reactionary.

Tokyo didn't even notice their own officers in Manchuria preparing a falseflag attack which was still botched and found out within months of the invasion. The IJA wasn't notified of the IJN's defeat at Midway until weeks later either.

Nazi Germany's military intelligence was marred by infighting and spies, who frequently just told the army what they wanted to hear. Their only major successes were early when they annexed Austria and Operation Nordpol. The rounding up of jews and others was done by the nazis exploiting the antisemitism already present in the occupied areas, using locals to detect and round up jews.

The Nazi's logistics also predicted the army they would lose a war against the Soviets by their inability to move supplies to the front, it's a miracle the fascists even managed to get as far as they did to begin with.

Cute

thats funny i remember Russia suffering catastrophic losses early on and only regrouping later, what silly story you have here

That's why I linked three articles in my reply which is a lot more effort then the average Holla Forumsetarian goes to. But I have to admit it gets fucking old having to reply to the same questions all the time–if you're a communist or consider yourself a leftist on a board like this then self-study should be part of your regimen. "I'm not here to educate you" is a terrible line to take with normies but having to repeat basic shit over and over again on a board that's supposedly rad left?

Here's the thing, people on the "Left" just use snark and laugh off what Grover Furr says but I've never seen anyone actually try to refute what he says in his books. You know why they don't? Because most of his books are packed full of primary sources and its much harder to argue against those then to simply laugh at Furr. In the first place, most Western leftists don't even want to consider Furr's point of view since they've been raised up on the Cold War leftism of the New Left–whether they want to acknowledge that fact or not.

One of the sources I linked wasn't even Grover Furr but a bourgeois scholar who was hardly pushing the "stalin-dindu-nuffin" who pointed out that Bukharin could be considered the father of market socialism.

He probably thought that Bukharin had been sincere in changing his mind. The fact that Trotsky was so fucking revisionist that Bukharin opposed him tells us more about who Trotsky was then it does about who Bukharin was.

The successes of Operation Barbarossa were due to even shittier soviet intelligence, terrible or nonexistent communications, and the army undergoing teething problems in the form of adopting new equipment. Part of the reason why the fascists were so successful was their enemies being inept early on.

...

The Wehrmacht is far from being this perfect Wehraboos try to make it out to be, but it wasn't utter trash. Wehrmacht was great on a tactical and operational level due to more egalitarian concepts of leadership and improvisation (Führen im Auftrag). This allowed them to conquer so much while basically being on horses and donkeys up until 1943. Sure the Soviets made mistakes but you gotta realize that the English, the French and the Americans got all outmaneuvered by them just the same.

My god I don't even what you're fucking point is comrade. If Soviet intelligence was shittier then Axis intelligence then honestly all it takes to subvert your enemies is to be slightly more competent.

I remember explicitly saying that it wasn't even that hard to reach saboteurs and collaborators in the USSR. No, it wasn't an "open democracy" but it was a 20th century society with telecommunications, mail services, railroads, airplanes, ships, and so on. Many of the core group of the Trotskyite-Zionviev bloc travelled abroad in Europe, so its not like it took much to reach them.

Does an intelligence service have to be particularly good to have successes? A lot of people here in America argue that the CIA is incompetent as shit but they've obviously had major successes.

On an unrelated note, if Soviet intel was so terrible how come burgers bitch and complain about Soviet intelligence "subverting" the Roosevelt and Truman administration?

Yes, for all the Wehrmacht's failures, they were still capable of matching or overpowering the world's superpowers at the time in combat for a time.

Only in the weak mind of a leftie, could such weak bait gain traction.

Stalin and Bukharin allied because they both supported the NEP and "socialism" in one country. They were the right-wing of the party, while Trotsky supported industrialisation and spreading the revolution. Guess who was the revisionist.

Yes, "war is a racket" after all.

Communicating with isolated cells is one thing, communicating and coordinating attacks on a massive scale is another.

If all it takes is to be more incompetent than your opponent yes.

The "Red Scare" and because soviet intelligence was incompetent early into the war, not during or even after the war when the Cold War began.

worst thing they did was destroy the actual machinery too

Most of the people involved in the plot had been seasoned revolutionaries in the past, they knew how to keep secrets. They rarely wrote everything down and almost always issued communications verbally, however, some written communications like Trotsky's letter written in invisible ink to his son Sedov as well as some of Sedov's letters still exist. Various writings and verbal testimony from Japanese and German intelligence still exist supporting the claim of definite conspiracy. Btw Osama Bin Laden evaded the CIA for more then a decade by insisting on verbal-communication only.

AFAIK the men involved in the conspiracy were not a massive group but they were very often highly-placed and in a position to do real damage. Btw the Germans managed collaboration on a greater scale then this during the war:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers

Tuchachevsky is a good example of how the Soviets were undermined prior to the invasion. Typically most people assume he was innocent, but his confession has been kept top-secret by the Russians down to this day. The only people who've been allowed to see it are convinced anti-communists, one of the men who was allowed to see it said he went in believing he was innocent and that the conspiracy among the army officers didn't exist but came out convinced that Tuchachevsky was guilty.

Why would the present anti-communist conservative government of Russia keep Tuchachevsky's confessions and other documents pertaining to him secret if they proved he was innocent? The same goes for the other plotters, Gorbachev for example had a team scour the archives looking for even the most trivial information that might create the impression that Bukharin was innocent.

seriously tho, this shit happened because there wasnt ENOUGH party overwatch there. the administration just let farmers and local industrialists fuck shit up without thinking what longterm effects it will have

why not continue squating in your abandoned grandparents basement with your anarchist hippie commune of junkies and social rejects?

that was kinda common in that region in those days. anyway how does this effect any of his policies, you autistic ISIS flag shitposter?

go back to mcdonalds

The "massive scale" was referring to soldiers on the front coordinating attacks, not collaborators in high positions, those could qualify as isolated cells, sorry about the poor wording.

Looking at Tuchachevsky's track record it's surprising he wasn't offed sooner considering how bad he fucked up during the Polish-Soviet War. Wonder how Europe would have looked like if the Soviets won.

also

Ironic, ain't it?

...

fam, Stalin was a straight up fascist.

...

The entirety of this post is a meme.

Main source of butthurt must be that he had actually managed to solidify USSR state, position and influence, while invoking Russian national tendencies
All while getting rid of bolsheviks, who got rid of other socialists
In the end it seemed to ensure at the time that the USSR would last forever
All of this seems so annoying to all these trostkytes, socdems and the new left

Here are the facts in context:
1. Homosexuality is a horrible mental illness, probably caused by a contagious mind-altering parasite which is spread by boy-rape.
2. Every healthy society had a system in place to suppress this disease.
3. Jews promote openness to homosexuality in all of their host societies in order to weaken their resistance to subversion.
4. The Jewish Trotskyite faction within the Soviet Union was strongly in favor of openness to the spread of homosexuality.
5. Stalin reversed these policies and rejoined the rest of the civilized world in suppression of this horrible disease and the Jew parasites which promote its spread.

homosexuality is actually just a hormone disorder, which is also why it so oftenly appears in pubescent individuals, who usually dont hold onto it trough adult life.
its about the same as cancer (i mean scientifically, not as an insult)

What is your honest opinion on this detailed post which outlines the gay-germ theory?

forum.therightstuff.biz/topic/50703/final-solution-to-the-faggot-question

What are you talking about? The Anastasia animation was based on fact, Tsar Nicholas was a good monarch, he dindu nuffin. But I agree with the other user, some warmer colours and a few trees would do wonders for morale

i dont wanna go witchunting for homos if thats what you mean, id just say it would be best if the thing starts being treated as a medical hormone disorder instead of either some personnal choice and an outcry against conservativ society or an absolute satanic mental desease like you have on both extremes of socieaty

...

Sources?

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

On hindsight, it really should have been obvious, shouldn't it? The wind of History is taking a while to clean his grave.

Settle down, Beavis. I wasn't blaming you.

I dunno man, obviously historiography comes from primary sources, but some historians make you raise an eyebrow. For example, there's this relatively new historian who has published books on Red China's history, framing them around the Greap Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, unsurprisingly. You can guess the narrative he makes. Yet he claims the most absurd things, I'm talking downright delirious, shit like a man being forced to bury his own son alive for stealing a handful of grain. I mean not even the fucking Khmer Rouge were that cruel. His sources for just about everything were "recently opened government archives" in a shitload of those extremely remote villages of the immense Chinese countryside. The odds of anyone ever bothering to verify if his claims are true approaches zero.
scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/1979870/what-drives-frank-dikotter-chronicler-chinas

So then, on the other side we get Grover Furr. What makes him stand out is that he seems to "debunk" every single accusation against Stalin, no matter how commonly recognized by contermporary people. It's absurd how much he works towards defending the man, it just smells like apologism. Saying he uses primary sources is nice and all, but so do all the historians accusin Stalin, Porky-paid or not. Since he's pretty much the only one absolving Stalin of all sin, odds are that he's in the wrong. Ultimately, I won't be able to verify neither his claims nor those of Stalin's accusers, so I'm afraid he loses for being outnumbered.

Sorry user, I really wish I could believe that communism's track record was spotless, but I can't.

...

Science is not a popularity contest nigger, in fact, Darwin quite rightly said that every argument if it is to tell us anything should be for or against a certain point of view. Marx referred to it as the "this-sidedness of things" and I think its a good materialist way to look at any debate.

Check out the clowns who have made their mark writing about Stalin–in the past it was Hearst and the Nazi/fascist press, in the Cold War that followed WWII it was MI5 agent Conquest and Russian fascist defector Solzhenitsyn. In each case they had some popularity for a time but then it turned out that they had lied and misrepresented a great many things which in addition to their noxious politics made them less and less credible in academia. Then came Courtois and the Black Book of Communism, since Courtois liked to LARP as a social democrat it seemed he had a shoe-in to tell the story but the various inaccuracies of the book forced the bourgeoisie to revise their story again. This time Timothy Snyder's book was hailed as the last word on the subject it didn't make any absurd claims that Stalin had killed 110 million, 60 million, 30 million, 20 million, or 15 million people as anti-communists claimed in the past but a seemingly plausible 6-9 million people.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=4F13589002A3DFA4B0139B332FEF54AD

And yet Furr shows that despite the help of numerous anti-communist institutes, organizations, and decades of publication in writing his book and he still lied numerous times in his book, misrepresented source material, mistranslated etc. If he was speaking the truth why lie? But the more cogent point is even with all the help he had from the esteemed world of anti-communist scholars, Furr demonstrates that he failed to prove that the deaths were intentional, that Stalin and communism were "to blame" for them, and that they were of the scale that he claimed etc.

Let's look at the trend of anti-Stalinism in the former and current communist world: first it was Trotsky that raised the banner of anti-Stalinism, then it was Tito, then it was Khrushchev, finally Mao came up with the most clever anti-Stalinist line yet by claiming that Stalin made mistakes and committed some crimes yet claiming to be an ardent Stalinist. However, that's just not true as he himself admitted: espressostalinist.com/2016/08/14/mao-apologised-to-yugoslavian-delegates-told-stalin-blocked-our-revolution/

So we see in the revisionist world a similar pattern of ideological molting that we see with anti-Stalinism in bourgeois academia and the West. Trotsky, Tito, Khrushchev, and Mao all resorted to telling lies about Stalin but have left quite lackluster legacies themselves, far more lackluster then Stalin's, and are hardly respected in the proletarian movement.

Furr is actually moving beyond the most advanced understandings of the bourgeois sovietologists in working in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s. People like Getty, Thurston, Fitzgerald, far from being communist dupes are simply moderate anti-communists with some semblance of academic integrity. Getty, for instance, was bold enough to write that Margaret Thatcher had more executive power then Stalin in the 80s!

The truth is not the middle way of the false debate between crypto-fascists and somewhat honest Cold War liberals as its presented to us by the media and academia. The fascists and Cold Warriors were less advanced then the New School of Sovietology in their understanding of the USSR and Furr and others working in the proletarian movement are more advanced then the latter. A telling point of the decay of the bourgeois narratives about Stalin in academia is the consistent failure to translate the Russian word for "limit" and to render it as "quotas" when talking about the politburos role in the Great Terror. Seldom is it mentioned that these limits were not followed by the NKVD who exceeded them greatly.

If we believe that Marxism is true and scientifically correct then we wouldn't expect the bourgeoisie to tell us the truth about previous attempts at communism anyway, it is not in their class interest. Stalin is the most maligned 20th century communist leader we should seek to understand what it is the world bourgeoisie hate so much about if we are to get to the truth. That the communist leader the world bourgeoisie hates the most might be considerably misrepresented follows logically if we assume that Marxism is true and the ruling class is intractably opposed to Marxism. Many Marxists are Marxists in words, in theory, but still think on these issues as if Marxism were not true.

I am only wonder why he left Nikita Khruschev after himself?

he didnt, stalin got kinda deposed after his death and the party people put someone completely different on not to have a new stalin

prettymuch any medical opinion and common sense.
The whole deal with the "isolating the gay gene" a few years back was about finding the cause of hormone dysfunction that is passed down trough generations, kinda like terminal deseases, if you ever bothered to look into the rant.
Instead you have people think that some nazi scientist went and tried to split cells or something with his 70s B-movie evil scientist lab kit with gays in cages.

The reason you dont have simple rational shit like this known in the general public is because when it comes to homosexuality and medicine you only have 3 kinds of people

Provide a source.

heres a few first off the browser.
politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145706
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/
whats wrong, am i oppressing you?
pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/05/us-radio-host-homosexuality-is-caused-by-a-hormone-imbalance-just-like-obesity-and-can-be-unlearned/

It clearly says there's some correlation with hormones. It says nothing about the subject being a disease.
Well, yes, you absolute genius. And you should aways remember that oppression usually is a reciprocal and blind phenomenon.

Appreciate the image, I'm actually working on a project to document the economic relations the revisionists had with the world capitalist economy particularly in the West.

Stalin didn't select Khrushchev to take power because he didn't select anyone to take over after he died because 1. it wasn't a monarchy 2. he wasn't expecting to die. In fact, Khrushchev didn't take over immediately but Molotov and Beria were the key-players in the USSR in the immediate aftermath of Stalin's death.

Stalin was most definitely murdered, most likely by Khrushchev and the gang around him, though some have accused Beria of having a hand in it as well.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228382/

a DESEASE is an ABNORMALITY in the FUNCTIONING or DEVELOPMENT of the BODY.
or are you going to say cancer too is a personnal choice and that chemoterapies are as oppressive and ignorant as straight camps?

...

you are aware that was the fault of the revisionists not actual Marxist-Leninist

Stalin started out as a cuck on the JQ but got more redpilled as time passed. Late in life, his opinions of the Jews were basically indistinguishable from Holla Forums's.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism

I'd be interested to hear a Marxist-Leninist take on this. The bolsheviks seemed to be very anti-antisemitism before Lenins death so what the fuck was Stalin doing?

mad at trotsky, mostly

My god, everything OP said is true.
FUCKING TRUE

no, im surprised someone is goona go full "muh emotion > facts"

Reminder that had Beria taken over from Stalin the USSR would still exist and be a superpower today

this

ill defend Stalin against western propaganda but he was clearly a right deviation from Leninism. i honestly dont know how much him being in charge really had to do with the USSR beating the Nazis but the way tankies talk about it is like he was the strategic commander and fought at Stalingrad. either way i would believe he was good at realpolitik but that doesnt mean he was a good socialist leader

Maybe he shouldn't have killed Stalin then.

He actually did

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsaritsyn

zionists killed stalin

you know perfectly well what he meant by stalingrad, smartass

also he implemented ridiculous, reactionary social policies that i would love to see a tankie justify as says

Those accusation are claims straight out of it's ass. None of that is true.

Also, you are being an asshole when you compare the fucking 30s with 2017 transgender bathrooms, instead of the contemporary social policies at that time. Marx was also a racist, how do you justify that?

You cannot condemn Stalinism without existing in proximity to fascism. Fact.

But im not making that comparison at all. Under Lenin the USSR legalized homosexuality and ended discrimination against jews and various asian ethnicities, and I'm under the impression Stalin reversed them.

Where the fuck did he encourage discrimination against asians and jews?

Also, regarding homosexuality: Lenin didn't decidedly legalize homosexuality, they just abolished the old Tsarist criminal code. So technically Lenin also legalized murder, rape, etc.

Stalin only recriminalized homosexuality because man-on-man rape and pedophilia were a problem in Russia during ages of turmoil and weakened central power; and back in the 30s, this was usually summarized under homosexuality as an umbrella term. Remember that he didn't criminalize lesbians: This implies that he didn't care much about gay people but more about sexual abuse. And again, look at the fucking US laws at that time.

The USSR didn't treat LGBT people any worse than any capitalist state at the time. Jews and Asians were absolutely not discriminated against; they had cultural and linguistic rights assured due to the Soviet nationality policy.

most retarded thing i've read all day

as i hvae heard, once you go black, you never go back. so i don't believe such a thing exists.

QED

Thomas Paine? lmao

We must support ISIS in its fight against Globalist Imperialism and Fascism

he deserved it in spite of this

wew, calm down anarchoboy

thats rich