Stop getting your historical information from Grover Furr and TheFinnishBolshevik.
t.Socialist who doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes I know, has nothing to do with the Youtube Skeptic cesspit. It's just able to cite its claims to academic resources. Jerking off over Stalinism is a sure fire way to stop Marx's ideas being realised.
It's your choice between Marxism and "Marxist"-Leninism.
Stalinist CircleJerk entraps us within Ideology
ML is an immortal science. No one other than us ever achived anything
I aint no tankie but..
Can't tell if they're being sarcastic.
Holodomor was weather, kulaks and bad collectivism. Mostly the former two.
Kulaks deserved it.
Gulags were deserved ``to an extent``
Purges were retarded.
Verdict: Stalin wasn't as bad as some portray but he did make mistakes. Don't mirror the USSR, instead learn from it.
Muh gorgillions isn't the reason to hate MLs, the reason to hate them is that they're just edgy socdems.
We have this thread every fucking day
To purge effective officers and hardcore commies is retarded.
Bucharin had it coming tbh
I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a sectarian shitfest…
OH FUCKING WAIT IT STARTED AS ONE
FUCKING SECTARIANISM REEEEEEEE
I mean that's debatable, but I don't really care about that. What I care about is whether we are GONNA achieve anything more before Capitalism destroys the world.
This is the actual reason I started this thread. I mean the language I used in my original post was a bit over emotive, and I regret that in retrospect, but my point was how trying to convince yourself the USSR was a model for socialism in the future is bad praxis. Jerking off over Stalin instead of theory is bad praxis. Not genuinely learning about the failures of Stalinism is bad praxis; we live in a world where he is thought to be a monster, contemporary Stalinists think he was a hero, in truth he was just paranoid and killed actual Marxists who would have made the USSR less of a shitfest whose writings were mainly trash (to the best what I know) .
Bukharin is a good example of the missteps of Stalin.
Feels bad man.
That's really not my point, I regret some of the wording of the original OP, but MLs are fundamentally my Gommrades. We both want to achieve, in the long run, a moneyless stateless classless society, and we need to work together on this. We disagree on how to achieve this but we're
I cba to type anymore
The main thing I want to take away from this is that putting time into making yourself want to believe that the USSR was a model for the future of socialism are really not doing the cause much help. The Soviet "Democracy" (which was as much of a democracy as Liberal representational "democracy") is not a model of governmental organizing for the future. There is a section in this talk by Paul Cockshott which compares Athenian, Roman, American and Soviet democracy; youtube.com
Download the audio and listen to it on yr commute or something.
Ayy kk. Sorry m8, I just hate sectarianism more than fucking anything.
stay non-sectarian, cumrag gomrade comrade.
Look. You are gonna think I'm an idiot, but unironically read grover furr. He proved that the final message was a fake anecdote.
Absolutley agree. No one here wants to mirror it
Continued. Ill use the socialist flag to distinguish myself.
Neither is the economic model the Soviets employed what we should look for into the future.
There is already a thread on this vid youtube.com
Its massively condesed tho.
Another, more long form and detailed analysis for u to listen to on yr commute or something: youtube.com
(I have a really long commute)
I don't think you're an idiot and I don't care to make you feel like an idiot. It's one of the fundamental problems with chan culture, and within that all the nuance of history gets lost.
I just want to alert people to the fact that he's not a qualified historian, he teaches Medieval English Literature and not history. He's definitely not free from bias and an agenda.
It's not really been proven, there is actually historical debate, it's just that Grover Furr is the loudest person to care about such a detail.
Then why the Stalin-stache? Why the "Stalin did nothing wrong" (which is something Grover Furr himself has said)
For meme sake and Because I admire then man cold pragmatism.
Stalin did things wrong, I'm not dening that. Grover furr is not a qualified historian but knows russian and does a lot of reserch.
Neither chomsky is qualified to talk about certain thing then, following this reasoning
Chomsky is only properly qualified in linguistics, so to that extent fair point. However we're comparing Chomsky, who has talked in depth about a staggeringly wide range of historical topics, and Grover Furr, who it's difficult to say does not seem at least a little obsessed.
I don't really have the time to post much more and I'm mentally tired. I don't want this thread to fall into sectarian infighting, this wasn't a cheapshot aimed at Tankies, it's just a criticism of how they use their time (i.e. spending inordiante time defending the soviet union when it's really not worth it and worthless in regards to implimenting socialism.) and their praxis.
"A new socialism grounded in material analysis of how the world is now" is a million times better (both optics and theory wise) than "we want the soviet union back". To take a leap, Marxist-Leninism is outdated and a detriment to the cause praxis-wise. The Red Scare in America was far far too powerful a social force, trying to convince others (and yourself) of the brilliance of the USSR as an ideal is masturbatory and imo very wrong, but you can disagree with me on that .
In a simple phrase, what I'm trying to say: we better place our efforts TOWARDS A NEW SOCIALISM. Not specifically Cockshott, but what Cockshott is trying to do is a million times more important than cultivating an ideological, biased view of the history of socialism in the 20th century.
I'm sorry if I'm being unclear with my language, but I'm earnest in my intentions. I'm gonna have to go but I love you all, gomrades
Imma go cry because my life is a mess
Everything is going to be daijoubu, friend
Well then what other method do you have to get rid of spies and opportunists? that was their best method at the time.
I'm not saying spy killing is bad, I'm saying that one could be a bit more efficient and or more careful. Yes, their circumstances were hard but sometimes papa joe gotta control that trigger finger.
and I bet you call anarchists idealists
making sure the guys you get rid of are actually spies and opportunists maybe
yes i agree he was sometimes mad with that finger but that's mostly because most soviet leaders at the time had an extreme paranoia of capitalism returning back, and i wouldn't blame them for that, after all maybe if they purged Khrushchev and Gorbachev the Soviet union would still exist today
Well and how are you gonna do this? It's not that easy as you claim, besides it's better to be safe than sorry.
He didnt. If we are judging him from what he tried to achieve, then he did a damn fine job. For rulers, their goal is first and foremost to preserve their status in power. Stalins actions where made because they helped him in holding power. The purges where done to get rid of potential rivals, not to protect some ideological purity of the party. He smashed the Germans because if they won, then he would have lost his power, not because he was a good boy who wanted to save the world from fascism. Stalin wasnt a Marxist, his ideology was just whatever was the most useful for him. And he did a damn fine job in holding power. Unlike Hitler and Mussolini, Stalin died in power.
W L A D
Or, as an idea, you guys ACTUALLY REFUTE the arguments made by Grover Furr and a lot of other people instead of just whine about him. "He isn't a historian" isn't an argument when he makes some very clear statements that can easily falsified.
WHAT A FUCKING JOKE. You tell us not to question the mainstream narrative and never listen to alternative voices, unironically use muh gorillions as an argument but blame us to eat from the trashcan of ideology? Eat shit.
all the shit he said about trotsky, bukharin and zinoviev collaborating with fascists is categorically wrong
kirov was not murdered by any conspiracy and was a convenient pretext to purge and consolidate power
if you think Every Old Bolshevik, Except Daddy Stalin was actually a scheming traitor, you are the most credulous fucking rube in the world.
No, it's worse, it's run by the socjus 'Atheism+' clique. Those are the people dumb enough for the skepticzone to make fun of.
that's actually impossible
I know that it's the mainstream position because of the ubiquitousness of anti-communism/anti-Stalinism but the burden of prove is still actually on those who believe Stalin killed Kirov.
It is a conspiracy theory whether it has academic clothing or not. Anti-Stalinists really aren't so different from JFK conspiracy theorists and 9/11 truthers. They've decided that Stalin is bad in advance and hence will do everything they can to bend the evidence to make him look bad and will seize on any rumor or source, no matter how nebulous to achieve that objective.
The irony is that while many of these anti-Stalinist leftists are unwilling to question the official story about events that occur in the West and dismiss it as conspiracism when it comes to Stalin it's a free for all to let every paranoid tendency run wild.
It's not really a surprise, popular anti-communism is largely based on conspiracy theories and anti-Stalinism is no different. While they accuse us of believing in "conspiracies" they have their own labyrinth of counter-conspiracies to draw on. For Hitler and the Russian whites it was the Jew behind everything; for Trotsky and every other revisionist it is a malignant scheming Stalin with omnipotent power whose true will can never be knowable without consulting their ideological precepts.
Bourgeois scholar J. Arch Getty wrote in the 1980s that Margaret Thatcher had more executive power than Stalin. That was the 1980s! But our so-called anti-Stalinist leftist friends are still stuck in the Cold War paradigm of Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and Hearst.
How can you have an alternative viewpoint to that of the bourgeoisie to the Soviet Union, as you often claim? You're behind even the bourgeois New School of Sovietology in your evaluations!
who gives a shit, idiot? he said PRETEXT, not that stalin organized his assassination.
My bad I misread that. But you do realize that the official conspiracy theory in anti-communist academia is that he was murdered by Stalin in order for him to consolidate power, right? Anti-Stalinist leftists have seen the murder of Kirov as an early and/or consolidating act of Stalinist repression for sometime.
So, what changed? He dropped the contention that Kirov was murdered and now just says that it served as a pretext. Well, nothing really changed, same old evil scheming Stalin but now you don't have to defend a position that really has no evidence for it. It's a bit like the JFK conspiracist who first says that JFK was murdered to get the US involved in Vietnam and then may come out years later and say the assassination was a convenient pretext for such involvement.
But what about the Soviet investigation showing that Kirov's murder was political? It simply must be dismissed out of hand despite the anti-Stalinists (here at least) giving up the whole Stalin-killed-Kirov narrative.
*murdered by Stalin
You really shouldn't have.
I thought that was kind of obvious but unsaid
You're a revisionist who deserves the gulag. Stalin was the greatest communist of all time.
Laughed pretty hard.
Still yet to find a guy who refutes his argouments tho.
How much layers of ideology is this guy in