Daily reminder the Mensheviks were right

IDEALISM
D
E
A
L
I
S
M

babbys first marx interpretation

It did at some points in history.
If you mean as a sustained worldwide phenomenon, neither has the proletariat.

It could if the revolution expanded abroad.

And I think the Menshevik history post-1905 shows that they didn't adhere to those ideas out of Marxist conviction, but out of lack revolutionary enthusiasm of any type.

DUUUUUH I HAVE NEVER HEARD ABOUT THE IKKO IKKI!

Some peasants have freed themselves in history, of course. But the peasantry as a class never did (and never will, since now it's gone).

And also a quarter of them died.

And guess what?

Just like the bourgeois didn't take power internationally over night, neither will any emancipatory movement!
Full world socialism will take centuries and is very close to a utopian dream, an excuse for not actually implementing socialism.

An excuse? Only an opportunist would think it's a good excuse. Actual communists will fight implementing socialism for centuries if needed.

You, on the other hand, are just trying to make an excuse for implementing not actual socialism.

No.
It's just a stupid "war is peace" dogma.

It is absolutely baffling that anybody could ever possibly take this position. I mean, I guess you can continue praising the corpse of those laughable failures if you want but history already totally proved them wrong when the peasantry showed their revolutionary potential and support for communism.

Nice propaganda

...

I wasn't referring to Lenin's person rather that by the time of his death it was too late due to the failure of the revolution to spread to the industrialised west.
Should have clarified comr8

...

...

...

Defend themselves from what?

"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker."

- Karl Marx

At least learn a little bit of your own theory before shitposting

...

Petit-bourgeois, according to Marx, are capitalists.

...

The Chinese left that decided to "ally" with Chen Kai Shek in the idea of needing to go through capitalism did far worse. The landed aristocracy refused to become capitalists and defended the semi-feudal system till Mao chased them to Taiwan.

Also the USSR went through modernity faster then any nation in human history, they went from illiterate dirt farmer to being the first nation into space along with building the first power generation nuclear reactor.

So no the USSR was not doomed to failure and the Bolsheviks industrialized the USSR faster then any Menshevik could.

The Soviet Union allied itself with Kai Shek - over the fucking chinese communists.

I guess the Chinese Nationalist movement was a priority for the Revolution… Not the Chinese Revolutionaries.

That is true but the Mensheviks also supported Kai Shek as it fit with their platform of uniting with the "progressive" bourgeois revolution. Thus all you statement does is show Stalin was corrupted by Menshevik ideas with him also supporting Kai Shek.

...

Stalin supported Chen Kai Shek for the same reason the Mensheviks did, he thought there was a progressive bourgeoisie that would bring China to a progressive capitalist state that needed to be achieved before establishing a workers state.

goddamit, you literally have no understanding of the historic context. The soviet union supported the collaboration of the nationalists and communists because at the current time A) the soviet union did not have the economic basis to support a communist revolution in china and B) (and most importantly B) Because If China was divided it would have been partitioned into colonies by the Brits, French, and I wouldn't be surprised if Japan took the southern shore or took advantage of chinese instability to occupy Korea which would have no support from China. Literally all these things were done to preserve the integrity of china as a political entity, and one ripe for future revolution.

And we can see later the true intent of the soviets, when they massivley supported Mao Tse Tung and his revolutionary movement.

Holla Forums literally has no understanding of historical materialism, everything you fucks ever talk about is taken into a modern context out of a historic one.

Source? And why wasn't Stalin himself a Menshevik? Don't tell the tankies this, but dude had no ideals. Surely this was just for pragmatic, geoplolitical reasons.

wew lad
WEW LAD
goodreads.com/author/list/138332.Joseph_Stalin

The nips actually did that in 1910, when China was still an empire.

Stalin fancied himself a hardline marxist, he refused to support a workers' revolution in Russia until the last minute. He still insisted that bourgeois revolution was the way to go, and when he took power he sabotaged worker revolutions around the world in favor of bourgeois ones, because "historical necessity".

The bolshie/menshie divide over bourg or prole revolution is mostly propaganda as far as I can tell, seems more like clash of egos to me.

Why am I not surprised? They did that like 3 times before, usually when the chins were at their weakest. kek.

The USSR already fended of 11 armies of intervention because it was revolutionary enough to infect the armies of its enemies where declassified documents from the British Army showed what they feared most was the propaganda from the Bolsheviks turning British troops red as they saw it happening to often for their comfort and they believed if they were not careful Lenin could launch a military coup against Britain simply by turning British troops all red.

>being able to barely defend your borders is somehow equivalent to providing material aid in a foreign country, getting these supplies trough foreign political lines with no air travel
Next you'll be telling me the soviet union should have invaded India post civil war to undermine the UK. t.Trotsky

You have no faith in the revolutionary potential of China, that had a successful revolution despite far more US military aid then when Stalin decided to back them rather then the revolutionaries. The whole reason Japan decided to attack China was the western powers only had paper forces in the theatre yet somehow Stalin thought these paper forces were too strong for a revolution.

I was

What did I say that was out of context?

Stalin supported Kai Shek, and not Mao.

How is that even false?

What? My god, pure ideology.

Reread. I asked WHY WASN'T Stalin a menshevik

you are right, I have no faith, why would I have faith in anything?
paper forces exist to hold land and not advance. But a key thing is that they held ports, which could be used very quickly to base fleets and transport troops. And the japs weren't even at war with the european powers, nor did they take their colonies. You forget the japs started their war in china before Hitler even made an alliance with them.

you are right, my memery got in the way and I read wrong. Let me adress your question however.
Basically, the majority of the mensheviks didn't want to overthrow the current constitutional government of russia-because before the revolution a sort of parlimental bourgeois democracy was put in place due to peasant revolts, anyways the mensheviks wanted to reform the bourgeois government without overthrowing it. Not every menshevik supported this, but the majority did. Basically the difference was capitalism with a bourgeois democracy (mensheviks) or state capitalism with a proletarian dictatorship (bolsheviks)

The soviet union only transitioned from capitalism post industrialization.

Why do you think he should be one?

Mensheviks were really, reaaally moderate in their transitional goals. They believed in developing a bourgeois order and a revolutionary programme designed entirely by the middle classes, and that proletarian parties should merely assist them.

It's true that Stalin didn't share the radicalism of a Trotsky or Parvus, but that doesn't make him a Menshevik. He was a classic Bolshevik of the 1905-1914 period: let's get peasantry, proletariat and petit bourgeoisie, do away with the bourgeoisie and aristocracy and develop "capitalist" institutions based on a rational approach instead of the free will of market forces.

Soviets existed under the provisional government, which controlled most of the production. That was already basically socialism.

Why did he support capitalism for other countries but not his own?

oof, you have to specifize the year comrade. Many of the so called 'soviets' of the time functioned almost as corporations owned by petit-bourgs. It is why Lenin shut down many of the soviets.

...

U wot m8

ey bb u wan sum fq

No thx fam

Do stalinists have tight holes?

Because when Stalin does it, it's always right

Probably not.

Now, Leninists on the other hand…

If you have no faith in the potential of revolutions to win then you become a self-defeatist as you always doubt the ability for the masses to overthrow their masters.

These were paper forces in that they couldn't even hold land as evident by the ass kicking the Japanese gave them when Japan first attacked the western powers.

Are you calling Leninists anal-retentive?

or maybe I am an optimist, but I think the concept of faith has no place in materialist, socialist discussion, and that it is the likes of conflating jesus with socialism.

every situation must be evaluated.

...

Well the material fact was the western powers had no means to quickly stop a revolution in Japan or China as evident by how poorly western forces did early off. Also the fact the USA just watched Mao's forces take over after the war.

Either Stalin was a cowardly faggot that was too scared to step on the toes of the west or he put supporting the progressive bourgeoisie above establishing a workers state.

Yes, but you see, you are talking in the context where the chinese government remained somewhat unified between the reds and blues. The truce lasted for, as far as I remember, five years if not longer. If constant war was waged between these two for those five years the japs would have managed to push even further, where as in our timeline they 'only' took manchuria.
And you still seem to fail at understanding that the soviet union did not have the means to support the chinese communists. If it were to support the chincoms, it would have only been an ideological form of support, and not a material, which would have done even less than a cease fire between the bourgs and the coms. Since as I specified before, the soviet union did not have the material means to aid the chincoms.

Also apart from this, it is easy to say all of these things with the historical evidence layed out in front of you, with the chinese civil war researched for the many years from it's inception to today, but these factors may not have been apparent in the early 20th century, even more assuredly as there was no advanced form of information technology. Why do you think these things were clerically evident?

ayy, yes they wanted to do this. This was due to very tight pacts and deals made post WWII between the soviet union and the USA. It is why the soviets didn't intervene in Greece, they were bound by pact not to intervene in the balkans, and it was a question of the entire eastern bloc and it's peoples, not just Greece. Would you have supported a third world war right after the second one?

The Nationalists defecting in droves to the communists, also the Japanese also had their unrest that could have been exploited by the USSR. Basically Stalin refused to use revolution itself as a means of national security. If Japan was too busy fighting a civil-war then they would have been unable to intervene in a Chinese revolution.

how hard is it to wrap your wallnut around the fact that the USSR literally didn't have the weapons, vehicles and artillery to arm any sort of revolutionary movement at the time?
You do realize even pre WWII they armed the Spanish communists right? That's because they had an economic basis on which to wage class warfare internationally. It'd be like criticizing the USSR for not subsiding a revolutionary country with food goods while they had starvation in their own country, and were still working on collectivization to end it. Oh wait, that is what happened.

good.

also
literally how, with what fleet? do you have any idea how shitty the russian fleet was? And you know that their fleet was based in the baltic sea, from the ye olde time of Tsarism right? You need to build a ship first, and you can't build a ship without a steel factory.

How hard is it to wrap you head around they didn't need much support.

As Tito proved during WWII, propaganda aid is more useful them military. If the USSR helped the the revolutionaries in China and Japan publish their leaflets and newsletters then these revolutionary movements could have better recruited the local populations.

As Tito proved during WWII, propaganda aid is more useful them military.
I probably know more about Tito than you, I am from a Yugoslavian communist party.

Again, explain to me how to establish a printing press large enough to affect a population as big as chinas, even limmited to the two movements at the time, and to perpetuate it. And I ain't even gonna start on the japs.

By the way, the soviet union actually did give the chincoms armed support in 1927, I checked. It was marginal however, as the industry was not fully developed yet.
They never stopped giving them support since then, all the way up to 1950 when Mao got into office. As the soviet industry progressed, so did Mao's armaments.

also, I am pretty sure the chincoms had their own printing presses and propaganda which they managed.

I'm curious, since you're from a yugoslavian party, do you support market socialism?

no.

Oh boy time sure flies when you're a faggot

Stalin went to trouble of killing Trotsky on the other side of the world, smuggling mimeographs into China and Japan from the USSR would been far easier then the effort Stalin exerted killing Trotsky. Hell the USSR had the means to smuggle projectors, film and cameras into Japan to aid the Proletarian Film League of Japan.

why is that? do faggots have slow information processing capabilities or cognitive dysfunctions? Does time pass faster because their perception is slower?

And boy, you sure are quick to guess my political orientation based on my ethnicity, and you sure are quick to guess which communist parties exist where.

Why I ought to call you a nazi :^)

It's a meme.

How am I quick to "guess" anything based on your ethnicity?

You realize you're posting under the Stalin-mustache flag, right?

Hehehehe

one man is all it took to end Trotsky, and henceforth the degeneration of the international workers movement. I am not sure cameras were being produced within the soviet union back then. As for mimeographs, the chinese already had presses, I checked. Hell, they had printing presses before the europeans.

I am shitposting until I need to go work at the bread factory, which happens to be in one hour. goddamn that job is soul crushing and I rarely have time to look at my increasingly suicidal wife I am being serious about the discussion about china however.

Don't forget that Stalin also hunted down Trotsky's whole family in Europe.

look after*

ooh, saucy. I want some reading on that.

Film equipment were being produced, how the hell do you think so many films were made under fucking Lenin? Do you know nothing of the works of Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov?

What good does presses owned by capitalists do for revolutionaries? The entire point is to give means for vanguard to communicate to the masses.

obviously I meant the chincoms had presses.
yes, but were they in wide enough production that they could be exported? I guess I am going to dig into the soviet economy to check it out.

We are talking about underground cinema production and and projection group that only operated in Tokyo, Kobe, Osaka, Kyoto and Kochi; how hard would have been to give them technical assistance. Also none of their films were translated and shown in USSR cinema, why didn't Stalin use the NKVD to smuggle their works into the USSR to preserve the art that revolutionaries in Japan were producing?

Traitor

Are you some kind of anarcho-stalinist?