Was he actually paranoid about revisionism or was that just his justification for consolidating power?

was he actually paranoid about revisionism or was that just his justification for consolidating power?

Other urls found in this thread:


When one is a member of the ruling class, everything is justification for more power. Human beings are self serving.

Psychologizing history is a dead end, think in systemic terms instead: what in the soviet economy made the politburo see traitors everywhere? Read J. Arch Getty.

Stalin wasn't ruling, he was a public servant, the proles were the ruling class, not the party

Turns out he was the real revisionist all along.

There's no real contradiction in your sentence. But I understand what you mean despite your clumsy wording.

Governments often end up buying their own press. I have no doubt at all that he imagined many of his opponents as crypto-fascists.

You actually can't answer this question properly without psychologizing. Explaining events through the character of men may seem like old-fashioned reactionary political philosophy but really people are all so vastly different you'll never understand governments until you understand the ideas in the heads of men that run them.

You've already defeated yourself here by acknowledging a prole/party dichotomy.

this is the thing about MLs and all its variants( I never got.They failed to defeat "revisionist" in the end. If once the dear leader dies, the party turns toward revisionism, isn't that proof that the workers don't really control the state and it was simply the party?


This argument of MLs failing to defeat revisionism is always kinda funny to me. For revisionism even be a problem, you need to have a revolution and some level of development first. The reason why only ML has this "problem" of revisionism is because literally all other tendencies didn't even get to that point where revisionism even becomes an issue, because all their attempts at revolution utterly failed.

he was right about revisionism

stalin was a genius, a maoist before mao put his thoughts on paper

he understood that the struggle continues even inside his own party and until all reactionary feudalist and capitalist elements are removed, the danger of counterrevolutionary forces winning power again is always possible

proven right after his death

We had this conversation before, and I know that Albanian ML (so Hoxha fag) poster had some resources regarding how the Purge itself grew out of control after being orchestrated by members of the party. They were in kahoots w/ Stalin but he didn't want the Purge like it happened and there was other stuff, but I forgot.

If Albania poster would repost them links if he has them I think it would be very beneficial.



for obviously

Stop conflating the role of the US presidency and the role of the General Secretary of the Central Committee while ignoring all historical context as well.

yeah that's what i've gathered from everything i've read as well. the purges had good intentions but became excessive and it wasn't his doing
no sources on that though because i'm a dirty phoneposter on a bus rn

the roles are different but the logic used to defend them is the same

t. anti-materialist

The reason why the president of the US doesn't work in the interests of the people, because the economy is privately owned. In the USSR the people controlled the means of production, so the government was working in the interests of the people.




haha good one mate

So the biggest country on earth survived dozens of invasions, industrialized, had population growth, and had a collectivization movement going on which wasn't even controlled by Moscow while being constantly at gunpoint with every fucking election/worker council decision/trade union policy being dictated and subverted as well? I mean, even if you don't believe that there was worker control, or that the 1936 constitution was fake (which is ridicolous in itself), this is simply unrealistic and absolutely insane.

Additionally to that, watch this video and check out the sources under it, there are western/liberal sources as well.

Lmao no, you're thinking of Trotsky.
Stalin was a brainlet and a listener, not a doer. He was jealous of people like Trotsky because he didn't have the intellect, eloquence or education that he had and he knew very well that he usurped the role of Lenin's sucessor through heavyhanded revisionism and degenerating the party and the revolution to suit his self-serving ends.

A bit of column A, a bit of column B.

this one

you gonna get reminded

You haven't made an argument yet.

what's the book that page is from?

Well to be fair a lot of them were betrayed or just straight up crushed by MLs or proto-MLs. See,

First of all it's not hard to believe that large industrial powerhouses can operate under a dictatorship. The Nazis did it just fine after all. Second, it's not that the Soviet government constantly went around subverting or rigging elections, it's that the institutions that were supposedly democratic had no real power, they were rubber stamps for the party so the elections were simply irrelevant.