The Great Purge

How does the "muh gorillons" crowd reconcile their anticommunist accusation with the fact that most of those killed by Stalin were themselves communists of the bolshevik Old Guard?


they dont
many realize that stalin did some things wrong, and simply mock the numbers used by liberals to dicredit communism.

And by "some things" we mean to say betray the revolution and implement his socialism in one country bullshit.

Don’t forget that he failed to lift the ban of factions within the party, effectively shutting down the whole “diversity of opinion, unity of action” principle that was the core of democratic centralism. Or how it was basically illegal for workers to organize outside state approved channels.

Diversity of opinion - you mean he should allow foreign capitalist propaganda that manipulates public opinion in their interest, just like what happened in former communist countries after 90s?.

Socialism in one state was the only solution. What the fuck should have he done? He financed every revolution, including that bullshit in spain

No, diversity of opinion means the freedom of discussion of policy which makes up the core of democratic centralism, the method of policy making developed by Lenin.

You are literally making this argument but swap out gays for """revisionists""" and pedos with capitalists. ☭TANKIE☭s argue on the same level as reactionaries.

Everyone could discuss, within communist boundaries.

But that's the opposite of what he did in Spain. The policy of the Comintern in Spain was to support the republic in the civil war and oppose the revolution because Stalin was trying to secure a popular front against fascism with the liberal western powers, Britain and France which he feared would side with rising European Fascism against the Soviet Union if communism was seen to be spreading.

Yeah, no. War means war.

Cool then I guess every other leftist needs to make note that ☭TANKIE☭s get the bullet too.

“Communist boundaries” defined by the party elite. Want decentralized planning? You must be a liberal. Want to give workers the right to organize indepdently? You must be a Fascist. Want to allow open criticism of the state and party? You must be a Trotskyite wrecker.

There was neither democracy nor free speech of any meaningful sort in the USSR.

you're arrested, you can either admit your guilt or be convicted for accusing glorious prole state of arresting innocents


Yeah, small steps to the right and everything is suddenly rightist. Noooo. The goal is worldwide communism, you dont water it down when you barely won.

No, lets build system by allowing everyone to subvert it in the meantime. Doesnt work that way.



better trust the infallible leadership who'll kill you if you voice a different opinion

Any time someone says there's no other choice it's the most transparent babby-level of manipulation.

But that's the opposite of what he did in Spain

Bullshit. People were arrested for a reason. Court decides that. Traitors to revolution have to be punished, thats not a bad thing. Like i said its war. Or maybe it was all the murderous regime?


You can have different leftist opinion. Porkys opinion not allowed.

It's not like there were never traitors or subversives getting arrested, but that doesn't excuse arresting other people.


What was the arms deal he made with you guys? He didn't mean too? C'mon..

So at what point is an opinion too porky? Who gets to decide that?


This is the point.
No one is arguing for letting foreign or bourgeois media, non-communist parties or associations.
Simply that Lenin's principle of democratic centralism be upheld.

M8 if you tried to implement socialism in a country where any meaningful portion of the population actually supported feudalism then you are probably the least dialectical person to ever exist.

That guy would be allowed to say that. They had all of that.


If you read the post you might see that it wasn't a matter of fucking saying something; it was a matter of organizing workers.

Never ever going to happen. Hence the boundaries that everyone has to follow.

And who gets to decide how an opinion qualifies as "Porky's"…? You?

No he wouldn’t, and if he was he sure as shit wouldn’t be allowed to take political action. I will remind you that it was ILLEGAL for workers to form SOVIETS in the SOVIET UNION.

mostly by making up fairy tales that trotsky, bukharin, zinoviev and rykov were conspiring with fascists to overthrow the USSR

I didn’t say 100%. But if the section of the population that supports socialism is not firmly in the majority then it won’t work. You can’t have socialism without proletarian democracy, and if you have to abolish that democracy because people don’t support socialism, then you have abolished socialism.

sure is free to discuss things in the party

No, the porky, he should say what commies can do. Lets listen to his opinions, dialectics!.

And it was a good policy, as history shown. Any "private" workers union (with foreign advisors from the CIA) was just used to destroy system from within.

So in order to safeguard the revolution, you abolish workers democracy, personal freedoms, and political agency of any kind for the proletariat.

How is this socialism?

Literally the ☭TANKIE☭'s version of "da joos".


Just give unchecked power to a single autocrat and hope they'll be benevolent enough to destroy all the class enemies of the proletariat :^)


Tbh this exact shit is what caused people to doubt socialism in the eastern bloc. Tanks have literally killed the left in a suicide pact by having their own revisionism allow for even more autistic revisionism to happen


Everyone shares means of production amd decide everything. There.

Again, boundaries. Leftist boundaries.

t. ankie deluxe





They have majority. That doesnt mean you allow enemys propaganda, because "we need to talk".

You must be a special kind of stupid

Right wing voiced one? Yes.

We're talking about different left tendencies you fucking moron. Non-tankie lefties are not right wing.

Then why did Stalin ban all discussion of policy within the party?

Because i didnt buy your "tolerance at every cost, even if it destroys you" propaganda? Get lost.

Leftist is within boundaries. Keep the boundaries. Boundaries.

Yeah, people were just robots, noone discussed or talked.


You're just cosmopolite folks. You need to work and be with working class people, so you will understand that ☭TANKIE☭ is the only option.
Get out of the bubble. Global revolution is a myth.

Are you autistic?
The ban on party factions objectively happened and was used to eliminate all opposition groups within the party.

That doesnt mean end of discussions. It means no d&c.

In US someone also had the "no parties" idea.

Sure thing, FBI.

color me shocked

Yes it did you colossal faggot. It ended democratic centralism and was a direct betrayal of Lenin.

Because you fail to realize that the need to suppress opposing voices within one's own movement is just another way of showing everyone that it isn't about the people's success but one's own, which ultimately leads to failure

The double think is real in this one

Aaaaand were in 2017 with soon feudalism back. Congratulations, left won.

this is honestly the worst thread I've seen on this board in months. fucking kill yourself user. impolite sage

so this is the power of ☭TANKIE☭ dialectics

Sure thing, one trick pony.

even your shitty ahistorical metaphors don't hold water

At least youll make circles onthe left side from the starting point. The right side is porkys private land and he shoots you for entering it.

Except for when those decisions are too porky according… somebody?

So who decides what is acceptable to say? The simple fact is that you can’t have a functioning democracy without the free exchange of ideas. If socialism is doing what it’s supposed to be doing and improving both the living standards and personal agency of the working class then you shouldn’t fear criticism, because workers won’t go against a genuine socialist state in which they have a say and which is making their lives objectively better.


So you are saying you oppose socialism?

I'm saying I oppose fetishizing bourgeois democracy and calling it socialism.
If democracy is more functionally effective within socialism than its alternatives, fine. If a more effective structure can be found, fine. But democracy itself is no immutable principle, exempt from criticism.

Democracy IS socialism, unless you can think of a more effective decision making apparatus that allows the working class as a whole to govern itself?

Holy shit, this board truly is an anti-communist cesspit during burger hours. For a second I thought I was on /liberty/.

Looks like all the liberals, Zionists, NazBols, imperialists and redditors have come back after /leftpol/ died.

No. Socialism is the abolition of commodity production and, with it, social relations mediated through commodities. Socialism is the -self-abolition of the working-class as a class-, because it is the abolition of class relations.

It’s also the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the self-governance of the working class. The establishment of the working class as the ruling class. This being the case, a society in which the workers do not govern themselves is not socialism, and I want to know how you think they can do that without democracy.

You also can’t abolish class relations without working class self governance, because as long as a political, bureaucratic, or technocratic elite exist they will have unassailable control of the state and means of production, and thus there will be class distinctions.

Which is a temporal, historically contingent form of organization before the advent of Communism.
What class is this working class "ruling"?
Self-governance is HIGHLY incompatible with democracy, which is the rule of others over all. Rather than democracy, what we want is the establishment of a situation under which the "free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".

Yes, I agree. Where I go further than you is in the recognition that once these other classes are abolished, and the working-class becomes a class for itself, it will CEASE to be a 'class' at all, and will become undifferentiated humanity. 'Democracy' ceases to have any meaning at this point, and representative electoral democracy of the kind proposed by Professor Wolff et al. would be reactionary in comparison.

Meaningless platitudes. Any instance of collective action will require collective decision making. In the absence of unanimous consensus, what course of action do you take? No matter what you do you either impose tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority, the difference is that with democracy nobody enjoys any privileged position over anybody else. There is no elite decision making group with control over the stage apparatus or the means of production, and thus there is no classes.

Even under the higher stage of communism this is true. To suppose otherwise would be to imagine a world without cooperative interaction and collective governance.

To a very real extent this is what Communism is - the elimination of the compulsive aspect of Capital in favor of free association, so that "society" becomes, for the first time, a conscious human construct. Collective decision-making, where required, might well be 'democratic' in the sense you're using, but this does not mean Communism itself will be Democratic.

Yes it does, in fact it’s a logical outcome of communist thought. If all productive property is held in common then there is no possible justification for assigning decision making power to a specific group of people. The common property of everybody necessitates equal rights to decide what to do with it, and thus equal say in those decisions. Any other arrangement would be the de-facto re-establishment of class relations.

The 'de-facto re-establishment of class relations' is inherent in democracy, which, however voluntary, nevertheless elects representatives to act on behalf of others who may only partially or not at all agree with the behavior of those representatives.

People who don’t like what their elected representatives do don’t constitute a class. People who have enshrined control over the means of production to the exclusion of all others however, do. The fact is that if you don’t have a democracy you have an oligarchy or dictatorship. If that’s the case then you have a section of society with control over the means of production and the state, while the rest are excluded from it. That’s a class distinction.

Save for our communal representatives, who will have been delegated the authority to requisition, in the interests of the community, the means of production to use in our own best interests.
Read Stirner. Then read 'On The Jewish Question' by Marx. Democracy is a historically-contingent form. It is not a divine principle.
Rather like elected representatives?

You are no different from porky you faggot, you just happen to be taking aim from the opposite side

First off, I never said anything about representatives. Second, even if I did, they don’t constitute a class because they are accountable to the population at large, political and economic powe in that case ultimately rests with society as a whole. This is especially true if you have mechanisms like the recalling of representatives at any time.

nobody on the planet thinks like this