What did he actually, in the not fascist Goebbels propaganda, Trotskyite slander or Khrushchevite revisionist sense...

What did he actually, in the not fascist Goebbels propaganda, Trotskyite slander or Khrushchevite revisionist sense, do wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:


Purges and assorted unjust killings.
Went a little overboard on his cult.
Could'a had more democracy.
Didn't look for a better leader to pass power onto.
Other than that he was cool.

Banned homo's and repressed their civil rights right back to levels the tsar had, but I suppose at the time they didn't have the understanding we have of the brain and psychology so I give him a pass there.

Honestly not very much wrong but he obviously should of thought more about choosing or backing the right leader.


pretty much this

He wasn't in charge of that and the guy who was, Yezhov, was taken out.
Not cultivated by him and repeatedly publicly opposed.
He was one of those pushing for that.
What is it, democratization or passing on power? Which he happend to have given up on the 19th Party Congress and dissolving the post of General Secretary. You know, that supposedly "all powerful position" Lenin "warned" about.
So we can agree that he was the best communist leader of his time and there simply wasn't any genius of his caliber to follow up and push the ML agenda through.

Wasnt Malenkov basically just a Puppet of Beria his entire time in office?

iirc they "only" put them into mental housing rather than actively going after them.
which western germany did till the 70's. so yeah, Stalin get's a pass.

Out of curiosity, not doubt. Please and thank you


Hey cool but we'll need some sources.
No offense, but I gotta take 'stache posts with a grain of salt.

The cultural politics of soviel russia were beyond stupid
It was pretty much entartete Kunst 2.0

Funded Bourgeois republicans to sabotage Anarchists within Spain.
Allowed to enter his cabinet and didn't even bother to prosecute them.
Was seemingly complacent in allowing gays to be discriminated against within Russia.


Everything but I would be lying if I said no communist has done something wrong in their lifetime.

Well that and Lady MacBeth of Mtsensk is quality.

excuse me what?

Anarchists claim the soviets betrayed them during the civil war because they don't understand that saving Spain from fascism was more important than a 3 year economic experiment.

Abandoning revolutionary romanticism in favor of a return to Tsarist ideals and aesthetics with socialist realism, generals and marshals, glorification of old Russia and leniency towards orthodox christianity. Leading to Greater Russian nationalism eventually replacing revolutionary ideals.

he said no propaganda

Simply the fact that you consider an ideological figurehead to be an authoritative leader shows you already buy into the "stalin was an authoritarian king" myth. If you want to know what the Party and the Comintern did wrong during the Stalin-era, I'd be happy to name a few things

Is liberals pretending to be nazis a new thing?

You people find all sorts of ways to subvert, I'll give you that


Stalin never wanted a cult surrounding him. Neither did Lenin.

In fact, Stalin attempted to step-down from the politburo several times.

He unironically had the people's love.

Pic related. Stalin is best daddy.

Stalin himself wasn't guilty of anything more than the rest of the Soviet bureaucracy, so I'll just list their crimes as a collective unit:

and so on

at least you say "the party" and not "stalin" like most retarded trots, so I'll give you that

the red army would have won if they kept going west from berlin

When people are afraid of being imprisoned or executed if they go against you, you can't reasonably call the decisions they make "democratic".
Correct, but it was obviously supposed to be a temporary measure. No self-respecting communist would actually think LESS party democracy is preferable as a long term state of affairs.
First of all, he did not "make" the Left Opposition. Secondly, it was really more of a loosely coordinated movement. Calling it a faction is highly misleading.
If the party had allowed internal disputes, this never would have happened to begin with. The Left Opposition had no other choice.
See my first point.
Trotsky was not opposed to the USSR and vigorously defended it any chance he got. The fact that Stalinists can't distinguish between Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union as a whole just goes to show how fundamentally anti-Marxist their perspective is.
It's okay to assassinate people for having a different opinion on the strategies and organization of the global communist movement?
The only thing Trotsky was guilty of was being too arrogant and autistic to navigate the political clusterfuck that was the Soviet bureaucracy.

Oh also purging Tukhachevsky based on fake German intelligence.

except this simply didn't occur. the party chose stalin because his model of socialism in one country was the correct choice at the time, since the other revolutions in europe weren't successful. your conspiracy theories have no facts backing them up

say trots, yet there is no mention of it being a temporary measure anywhere, not in the congress transcripts, literally nowhere (in contrast to other temporary measures)

he was one of the leading figures inside said coalition

it was a coalition of people that was planning on printing propaganda that went against the democratically decided position of the party. aka, a fraction

it did allow dispute, and all matters were discussed in congresses from all the points of view. even after the decisions are made, the opinions that didn't win the popular vote are still transcribed and available for anyone to read. again, you're justifying something the majority (and trotsky's clique) clearly knew was illegal. If lenin was alive while this occurred, trotsky would have had the same fate

you have no point, only propaganda not backed by any facts

Trotskite parties urged communists to split away from their m-l parties in capitalist countries and form separate entities. in my country there are literally some 20+ trot parties that split themselves twice a decade. might as-well call yourself an anarchist at this point, their collectives have more solidity than your so called parties

when those opinions are "split from the worker's movement and join my permasplitting movement" then yes. if he didn't try to subvert but simply wrote critique, he wouldn't have been assassinated. hell, if he wrote critique without making cliques he wouldn't even have been expelled.

sure thing buddy. why don't you go snitch on some communists now like your comrade orwell?

Oh, okay, you're fucking retarded.

Thanks for saving me the time and effort of actually having to give a serious rebuttal.

pick one

The only people who unironically support Stalinism have massive daddy issues and want a big strong father figure to fuck them in the asshole.


It's true.

What do Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Kims, etc. all have in common? They were/are all-powerful, larger-than-life authority figures that exhibit a disciplinary, manly man persona.

By this juvinelle standard this is literally all trots


He died

The past is the future and the future lasts forever. We're fucked if thats your reading of Stalin


It's not wrong, but it's also not reasonable justification.

Except the Soviets didn't save Spain from fascism, they arguably caused it to fall, or at least accelerated it, by purging all the anarchists and Trotskyists who were actually fighting Franco and pals, and by getting rid of the militias.

so what I should take from this post is that if kim / castro et al were women instead we would have Real Socialism™

Definitely true, let's kill all men.

What you should take from it is that trots don’t have any real points rebuttal other than those they share with Robert conquest and generic “hurr durr Stalinist jist have a father figure complex”

Holodomor never happened comrade.
Idiotic purges, yes, but to targeted genocide.

No. You're deliberately misinterpreting my point to make me seem silly.

tbqh, those sort of people and their policies can be useful in certain situations, especially if you're country is under attack from all sides.

Sure, but my point is that MLs are drawn to these figures not because of their theory or writings, but because they are psychologically drawn to the image of such leaders.

That's… not an argument…

Yes, it is.

If we're debating the merits of Stalinism, I think it's very worthwhile to consider that most Stalinists have no particular theoretical framework that they adhere to and that everything is psychological for them. "Socialism in One Country" is the only theory that Stalin consistently supported through his political career and he wasn't the one who came up with. That was Bukharin. So why aren't MLs obsessed with Bukharin? Because he doesn't make a good daddy figure.

How is that bad?


This fucking 4 knows. Stalin was not a particularly good theorist, and it makes no sense to worship him like the stalinists on this board do.

That they could so easily be purged does not speak well of their combat abilities. Soviet tanks, planes and rifles > anarchist enthusiasm.

Around fours, close the prison doors.

invasion of Iran fam, he literally aided British imperialism

he's done more to defend socialism than anyone else in this board, that's for sure.

Only by leaving again.



this is unironically what trotsky says as well, he wrote in his philosophical manuscripts that for psychology, freud is much more useful than marxist approaches like luria and vygotsky.

fun fact, a professor who was a pupil of vaziulin offered to translate for free trotsky's philosophical manuscripts, and all the trot parties here declined his offer.

this is what trots are

no, Lenin knew better.

as opposed to Trotsky who never supported anything consistently ever. If we're going to pass off pedestrian psychological evaluations as an argument Trots are literally just contrarians who want to be different and edgy.

>Anarchists claim the soviets betrayed them during the civil war because they don't understand that saving Spain from fascism crushing political rivals even if it hurts the war effort was more important than a 3 year economic experiment actual socialism.

Hoping nobody in this thread gets banned or their posts removed so I can keep what faith I have left in the mod team making sure this isn't just an echo chamber for Stalin

Dude being gay was pretty much illegal everywhere until the 60s. You might as well attack him for not supporting trans rights as well.

He couldn't have done anything to change material conditions. In that sense he did nothing wrong

I think why a lot of people bring that up is mostly due to Lenin's decriminalizing of homosexuality (and Stalin's recriminization) Had Lenin just kept the ban in place I'm almost positive people wouldn't bring that up.
So yeah, kinda a shitty move and I see why people will bring it up at all, even if it's a little redundant to use it as an argument.
The best comparison I can give is if the USSR legalized alcohol then did prohibition when the rest of the world had prohibition for millennia.

What the fuck was this guy's problem?

And why didn't Stalin purge him for someone far more capable for the damn job?

When it came to his job and after all is said and done, you really couldn't find anyone else more capable than Beria. The man was *good*.
Stalin introduced him to the Allies as "our Himmler" for a reason. Beria was able to stay off of Stalin's shit list by being incredibly politically savvy and an extremely efficient agent of the state, much more so than anyone else who was killed/purged.

He was a massive fucking dick, though, and in the end got what he deserved.

I am positve there was a single man in Russia who could probably do his job without you know, the treachory, and kidnapping women, and not trusting your family around him

There had to have been somebody fucking as accomplished. Even if there wasn’t I’d manage with someone subpar compared to Beria, because he was a legitimate freak

He should have been purged

Screaming and wretching and crying and choking up before he died only proves his crimes

[☭] Defending the use of the law of value by Soviet planning organs, which led to vices such as bad quality overproduction, and constant tension between the planning organs (Gosplan and the Ministry of Industries) and socialist enterprise. Che Guevara is perhaps the main figure to represent this critic and here is an article about his points: marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/yaffeh/che-critic.htm

[☭] Imposing a two-stage theory of socialism and the United Front policy on developing countries (through the parties affiliated to the Third International). This made many Communist Parties around the globe degenerate into reformism and literal class collaborationism.

[☭] Not purging the party of Kruschevites and other such vermin. We probably wouldn't have had peaceful coexistance, the perestroika and glasnost, etc.

[☭] Effectively reimposing the ban on homosexuality by treating it as a mental illness, though I do understand that we owe this to the still huge influence of the Orthodox Church in the territories of the USSR, and generally to a still
very conservative culture on the world. So, not cracking down on the Church.

[☭] not killing enough kulaks

Literally the only thing he did wrong. The Soviet Union would probably still exists if it wasn’t for this simple fuck up.

I mean fucking Beria nearly schemed his way up to the top, what a fucking disgrace

Thank you for reminding me how awesome Che could be.

This, he demanded that there be no revolution in Spain as he was trying to appease bourgeois France (though the leftist antifascist Popular Front was in power at the time) in order to get an alliance with them to contain Germany, so manpower and resources were wasted in dismantling collectivised enterprises, imprisoning leftists and reestablishing property rights to their original claimants, which probably saved Franco a lot of time.

He didn't even get the alliance at the time and then later collaberated with the Nazis in partitioning Poland and annexing the Baltic states before being betrayed by the Nazis.

Not to mention he regretted recognising Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, as it was politically expedient at the time and he backed the nationalists in China till it was all too apparent that Mao's victory was inevitable.

The guy was an oppurtunist and a lousy one at that, he squandered much power that in the hands of a more able man, could have put the Soviet Union in an even better position than he had left it.

Speaking of Poland, he even cocked up the first Soviet invasion of Poland just after the revolution after he took it upon himself to seek glory and failing in doing so instead of obeying orders, that should have killed his career then.

Good post.