How the fuck do libsocs not realize if you don't invade countries...

How the fuck do libsocs not realize if you don't invade countries, stage coups or dismantle governments you cannot liberate the workers of the world?

Before you say "hurr durr neocon", isn't our main goal to do anything necessary to further our goals of world liberation?


Commies volunteering and joining foreign revolutions is one thing, but foreign powers invading and not-a-nation-building is asking for trouble.

Tanks btfo.

Socialist countries cannot be imperialist. Read Lenin.

How about we put it like this;

How the fuck are you a leftist if you don't support liberation of the world?

Besides, leftcoms and anarkiddies are the ones believing that all socialism is state capitalism, believe in shitty american anti eastern block propaganda and cannot see the basic difference between socialism and communism.

Pick one.

Read Marx.

Not an argument, holodomor was caused by the Kulaks themselves and not Stalin/The Red Army, you retarded leftcom pieces of shit literally believe nazi Ukrainian propaganda.


What happened to "workers of the world unite"?

It's not my fault a statist doesn't understand his own theory.

Stalin didnt like this idea.

Nice strawman, and I'm not even a tankie.

States are an important part of socialism though. I think you may need to read Marx yourself.

Ah yes, the permanent revolution VS socialism in one country.
Stalin's idea was not "hey let there be just one socialist country"
Stalin's idea was to improve one socialist country to the point of it being a global superpower, then to further influence the international scale, if Stalin just wanted socialism in a single country forever, then explain the Comintern alliance.

States area an important part of socialism though, I think you may need to read Marx yourse-


Also, not just the Comintern alliance, the Prague Spring aswell, the invasions of Baltic countries, invasion of Finland, Warsaw pact, etc. etc.

And there we have the stalinist cuckold who doesnt dare to improve socialist theory but only follow the dogma of the dear leader. Communism is internationalist and Soviet Union failed utterly in exporting communist revolutions to the west.

After World War 2 the western worker was living high off of imperialist super profits. Trying to promote communism there would be a useless gesture.

Yeah no shit Sherlock, how the fuck would you successfully do that when the USA and the west are nothing but imperialists who spread anti communist propaganda.

I am from the Balkans and when I first heard the "communism killed 100 million people" argument I was so fucking confused, really should give you an idea how disgusting American pigs are.

Its all about propaganda and cultural hegemony. Soviet Union under Stalin chose isolationaist path and american hollywood made sure of capitalist hegemony in culture.

That's how it usually starts, that's the easy part. The hard part comes afterwards, but what you ancoms fail to recongnize is that a cleaning of the society must be done for some decades like in USSR and China. Otherwise it will fail from the start.

The American government actively prosecuted directors/writers/actors who were suspected of holding communist sympathies. And those were American citizens. What do you think they would have done if the USSR was actively pumping out propaganda for American audiences? You are being incredibly revisionist here. America (and the rest of the west) was extremely illiberal (with regards to leftist organizing) during the 50s and 60s.

Also, what do you mean by "not wanting to improve socialist theory". I literally haven't expressed any of my opinions on other Socialist theories, like Maoism, 3rd worldism, Trotskyism etc. etc.

Maybe use billions from arms race to make better propaganda. But the most important thing was the Soviet L
eadership with their ideas of "peaceful coexistance" like the revolution in America and Western Europe would happen itself.
Capitalism kills 100 million people to preventable disease and poverty in 5 years.

Soviet Union should have spent massive amounts of the budget for propaganda and supporting western communists with money and weapons.

Not only that, the 100 million argument was proven to be bullshit and the people who brought up that argument themselves admitted it was complete bullshit.

Now about the "peaceful coexistance" thing
Stalin could not afford another war after ww2, they were certain to lose because the USSR and the USA were very similar powers, ultimately all actions against the USA would result in the destruction of the world, and with every leader after Stalin falling to revisionism, there was no way to successfully liberate the west.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the west basically controlled every single aspect of world media, so all Soviet propaganda was silenced, erased, destroyed or put down.

There's a geopolitical reason for why they focused on the third world. Also western workers were a shit and didn't deserve socialism back then.

This, this is probably one of the best posts on this thread.
/thread - this deserved it.

Its the fucking nuclear weapons. Without them Soviet Union would have steamrolled over the west.

They did support western communist parties with usually lead to the death of any genuine workers' movement.

Propaganda has made people weak and pathetic. They'd rather stay with the status quo since it doesn't inconvenience them.

The west killed all genuine workers movements. Again you falling for liberal revisionism. Western communists were systematically purged from all important institutions during the early years of the Cold War. At the same time radical unions were "disciplined"/ and weakened by governmental policies aimed at minimizing their role in the economy. Others were restructured in order to control what they sort of things they would and would not do. The USSR was simply trying to hold its own in the west. They understood that only the truly oppressed could fight capitalism. During the Cold War these workers could only be found in the third world.

Yes the Soviet Union supported western worker movements, but that did not lead to their deaths, it is due to the unfair and evil USA government.

Looks like Lenin was an anarkiddie then:

You guys keep reaching new lows.

The Bretton-Woods system was quite possibly the most vile international arrangement that has ever been made. It effectively enriched the west at the expense of the third world. The largess it generated for the white working class in America made creating socialism there basically impossible. The same happened with the Marshall Plan in western Europe. Japan was also a major beneficiary of American-backed imperialism, so it could not be infiltrated either.

I have


You got the quote wrong. Marx really said;
"Workers of ONE NATION unite!"

A common mistake, you see…

I don't see your "4" flag you dirty Trot.

Hello Trotsky how ya doin


please not the icepick…


Stalin-sama coming in for the kill




OP was spouting some Trotskyist nonsense, and Stalin stache called him out. I don't see the problem.

How is what OP is saying Trotskyist nonsence? He said that Stalin's goal was to have socialism in one country, when that country would have better living standards then they could expand and rule globally, supporting foreign communist governments and invading foreign non communist countries, which Stalin did. Stalin did not mean to have socialism in one country forever, but to have socialism in one country until said country becomes powerful enough to have global impact. If that is Trotskyist nonsence, explain the Comintern, eastern block, invasion of Finland, Baltic countries, Prague spring etc. etc.


yes , thats usually how it works, marxists do not read Marx, anarchists do

anyone has the image that cites something like this btw?