Kill millions of porkies to protect the revolution
Other urls found in this thread:
Daily reminder that Pol Pot did LITERALLY nothing wrong. Stalin and Mao were pussies that weren't willing to go far enough to achieve communism.
Stalin and Mao were both Marxists. Besides the military uniforms and red flag they have nothing in common with Pol Pot.
The great strong leader would have had you filthy counter-revolutionary bourgeois traitors lined up and shot for corrupting the minds of the proles.
Is porky just leftypol's version of kike?
roughly speaking, porky is our version of the happy merchant that Holla Forums uses
also show tits
Mao was actually cool.
stone me to death, I don't care
And this is what we call Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Shouldn't we starve you to death for that?
keep your shit to one thread, reddit
Porky = bourgeois
Kike = jew
It's not the same thing.
Anarchists, everyone. Useful idiots.
Stalin and Mao did some lame things (ie Great Sparrow Campaign was dumb as fuck) but that doesn't mean you throw the whole thing in the trash.
Any leftists who would not have supported them because they aren't a perfect match for their special snowflake ideology may as well be anarchists. Stalin and Mao had problems, but if you would take the side of capital over them given their pre-revolutionary material conditions, you're just an idealist.
I guess killing millions with their inept policy is just "lame things"
This is your brain on Stalinist ideology.
Yeah, deaths during times in inward and outward turmoil completely invalidate the progress made in life expectancy, literacy, working conditions, etc they made. There's validity in saying "purges/gulags went too far," or "Mao's adversion to intellectualism created problems with the ecosystem etc," but these criticisms shouldn't derail the entirety of ML canon. With hindsight 20-20, we can look back on the mistakes made prior and think of how to reconcile them going forward.
Keep in mind, if Russia/China was fully industrially developed with plenty of surplus value, the course of their revolutions would have been completely different.
Naturally, but we have no way of knowing what would have been different and how much. Imo it's better not to wank over "what ifs?" (hello kekalonia fan club!) and try to learn from our mistakes and move on.
I agree, it is impossible to separate the events of the past from their material surroundings, and trying to do so is an exercise in futility. At the same time, it's important to look at what went right and not to discard that.
So: is the paradox that the revolution requires the modern surplus production to 'stick', but at the same time the surplus production keeps the proletariat and the dwindling middle class too happy and content to actually revolt?
Anarkiddies and left-comms are the worst, comrade. Idealists at best, liberals in disguise at worst.
long ago legend told of a grill that came here to shitpost on Holla Forums. this grill was known as satanfag. a brave user came at her with triple digits bravely posting satanfag "tits or gtfo"
also show tits
Hey shithead, there's this thing called "the green revolution" that happened in that time period.
Reminder the true leftists aren't the edgiest ones possible, but the ones who have actually read theory.
Thanks for the thread based comrade, and thanks to based comrades in thread. The leftcom salt is delicious.
wew lad, sure smells like sectarianism and boipussi in here.
Again, the whole "either you support Stalin or support porky" thing is stupid and makes you sound like a god damn religious nut
stopped reading lol
Oh boy here we go…
But many jews are bourgeois or are in the finance sector. The 1% boogey man is the same as durrr ebil kikes boogey man.
Not me fam.
"The jews" aren't a homogenous mass who share the same interests since there are jews in all classes. Bourgies on the other hand all share the same material interest in keeping capitalism alive.
Short answer, yes.
They both serve the same purpose and represent the same "People", not in the form of the Jews but, in the form of the oppressor of the masses.
But you'd agree primarily Jewish organisations such as the Rothschilds and other international conglomerates based on Jewish families are a key component of the oppressors of the masses?
Maybe yes, maybe no, it's not like international conglomerates based on Arab/Japanese/Russian families are any better. Unless you're implying the world would be better if the banking elites happened to share your nationality.
There weren't originally but they were created when someone had the brilliant idea to simply redistribute feudal land to individual peasants rather than collectivize it.
I'm not primarily accusing the Jews, I think a lot of our points align more than we'd like to admit.
Arguable, I think most people here are aware of the similarity.
It's funny. As soon as Stalin removed the kike filth from positions of power, the soviet union began to prosper.
also porky = kike
Go back to obsessing over black cocks, Holla Forums
Yes. The agrarian bourgeoisie in the USSR alone numbered in the millions. That considered, this isn't denying that hundreds of thousands of unnecessary civilian casualties occurred on the direct order of Stalin, he knew this himself. Do you think you could've successfully eliminated all the reactionary forces within the Soviet Union trying to destroy socialism with 100% accuracy and without any losses of life? Don't be naive. The only crime of ML states were that they refused to let the revolution die.
Who owned them then? Please say 'the bureaucracy' again for me, I haven't had to debunk that one in about a week so I'm up for it.
In practice they're 100% liberal, though in name they're anarchists and democratic socialists. These types have simply rebranded anti-communism into anti-ML. Look at this shit. They've just been programmed to endlessly repeat 'Stalin was evil' and 'the communist party killed millions,' they don't know what else to say. Anti-communism is a fucking religion.
Lenin and Stalin argued that there was a rural bourgeois in Russia. Which was basically anyone who owned animals on their subsidence farm.
wow, calling asians "chinks"
that's very racist of you. you should be ashamed of yourself
Were not SJWs you silly, nobody will have a problem with saying "nigger faggot kike"
really good post baby boy!
Managed to do all that without massacring thousands of innocent people or creating a cult of personality, so really you should be sucking FDR's dick rather than Stalin's or Mao's.
Or maybe you could realise that there have been plenty of leaders who have helped their people, yet that doesn't make them good communists (or, really, nay type of communist), or even excuse their crimes against communism.
Stalinists are the worst. They buried the revolution in the last century in favour of bureaucratic state capitalism, and now they are holding us back in the new century.
seriously, quit spamming this thread with your worthless hateful comments
Despite the proliferation of M-L fuckery on this site, it doesn't bother me. Cause Stalin's image is never going to rehabilitated in the West because most people aren't completely retarded.
Thanks for proving the ML's in this thread right. That a comment like this can go by under a socialist flag just proves this board has become Menshevised.
He wasn't in a position where it was necessary or even politically possible. He did, however, use state violence against his own population up to the extent that it was allowed. I don't think I need to name the incident.
Replacing imperialism with imperialism is not an accomplishment.
Actually he made decreasing food production one of his top economic goals in the 30's. Shame about how that worked out.
So saving capitalism qualifies as improving living standards. Why are you even here?
It's good that we've had some threads like this recently, this board was always tilted a bit to the right but now we seem to be in danger of serious liberalism. At this rate we'll have a sizable minority of demsocs before long.
It's all one big circle brother.
Don't forget Stalin undermined the Republicans in the civil war, arming only the Stalinists and pro-capitalists over there and eventually helped to set up the Spanish secret police over there to arrest all other socialist and communist party members incommunicado (gulagged effectively) and this was while the Republicans were losing the war against fascist Franco.
He ordered that there be no revolution in Spain, claiming that they weren't apparently ready for one, so all of the collectivised farms, factories and services were forcibly returned to their bourgeois owners, saving General Franco a lot of work.
This was apparently done to appease France which he was hoping to ally with against Germany, albeit France was ran under the Popular Front (socialist party) and he should have pressured them into saving Spain from the fascists given the threat from Hitler and Mussolini, what a wonderful cock-up, Stalin and France were lucky that Franco ended up being mostly neutral in World War 2, but Spain could have been an actual socialist ally.
As for China, Stalin was against the communist revolution there as well, supporting the nationalist government till it was abundantly clear that Mao would win with or without Stalin's support.
And regarding Vietnam, Stalin regretted that he recognised North Vietnam, he trolled and mocked Ho Chi Minh when he visited Moscow seeking his help.
Stalin was a self-serving dick, he didn't even understand theory and had his personal tutor on Hegel executed during the purges because he was so butthurt about it.
except most people ive heard who talked shit about either of these cunts are former soviet or chinese people