How would YOU have modernized agriculture and industry in time to fight fascism without liquidating peasants?

You mean when the economy was completely in shambles and there was barely enough grain produced? Yeah, that would surely have been the perfect timing.

youtube.com/watch?v=flEDBnDW4Rg
Stalin did nothing wrong

Give ALL of them the means to defend themselves, so those nazi bastards would have a land of unlimited armed peasants to dig through if all else failed.

*star spangled banner intensifies*

To be honest I would try not to displace ethnicities in a manner that 50% of them died.

By recieving a fuckload of logistics of the United States of America in WW2.

tankies win again

I'm sorry if not everyone is such a huge history nerd as you are.

This board in a nutshell.

Maybe you have infinite amounts of time on your hand but I gotta do work and shit.

So there was enough grain produced and the country wasn't in shambles for the 1931 famine? When the country is in shambles is when you fix it, yeah, but you need to do so at a rate that doesn't tip the scales into mass starvation.

this tbqh

Good point OP but what can we learn from this? What's our equivalent, achieving socialism in time to avert climate catastrophe?

I agree.

Trotskys "rate" was faster and would've ended Great Leap Forward tier.

Trotsky often wrote about Stalin's five year plan while it was happening commenting how it needed to be scaled back before catastrophe.

...

The fact that the question of liquidating the peasants even came up is proof in and of itself that every last shred of Marxism was gone.

Just a little earlier, one who suggested such a thing would've been laughed at, at the least.

>But the red banner means more than proletarian support of the peasants’ demands. It also means the independent demands of the proletariat. It means struggle, not only for land and freedom, but also against all exploitation of man by man, struggle against the poverty of the masses of the people, against the rule of capital. And it is here that we are faced with the second question: what can the revolution give the peasantry? Many sincere friends of the peasants (the Socialist-Revolutionaries, for instance, among them) ignore this question, do not realise its importance. They think it is sufficient to raise and settle the question of what the peasants want, to get the answer: land and freedom. This is a great mistake. Full freedom, election of all officials all the way to the head of the state, will not do away with the rule of capital, will not abolish the wealth of the few and the poverty of the masses. Complete abolition of private landownership, too, will not do away either with the rule of capital or with the poverty of the masses. Even on land belonging to the whole nation, only those with capital of their own, only those who have the implements, live stock, machines, stocks of seed, money in general, etc., will be able to farm independently. As for those who have nothing but their hands to work with, they will inevitably remain slaves of capital even in a democratic republic, even when the land belongs to the whole nation. The idea that “socialisation” of land can be effected without socialisation of capital, the idea that equalised land tenure is possible while capital and commodity economy exist, is a delusion. In nearly all countries of Europe, socialism has experienced periods when this or some similar delusions have been prevalent. The experience of working-class struggle in all countries has shown in practice how dangerous such an error is, and today the socialist proletarians of Europe and America have completely rid themselves of it.

There is even anothe quote by Lenin explicitly stating that no real Marxist in the situation of the Bolshevik Party in Russsia at the time would ever propose systematic violence against the peasantry.

Now it could even be true that this had to happen for Russia to become a superpower that could hold its own in an inter-imperialist world war, but the ideology that proposes that this has anything to do with socialism is a horrific abomination with nothing to do with Marxism in anything but superficial terminology.

You didn't answer the question

take your pills ASAP

I'm saying the question of how to make a pillar of world imperialism is not a question there is a socialist answer to.

Well the Bolsheviks had an answer or are you arguing that they were really just pretending to be socialists to further the interests of global capital or whatever

Are you saying the Bolsheviks asked the question to themselves:

How should we become a pillar of world imperialism?

No, they asked themselves how to spread communism around the world and once that became evidently impossible they asked themselves how they could turn imperial Russia into a socialist state that could defend itself from domestic and foreign reactionary threats.

They were real socialists who unlike you were trying to find solutions to tough real world problems because sitting around with thumbs up their asses while the Tsar's backwards regime got its shit kicked in wasn't really an appealing second option.

The Bolshevik party, as the revolutionary party of the proletariat, was completely destroyed (in terms of both content and in form) by that point, only the name remained.

for a few who knew better (and even for them it was only at select times)

For the most part by far though, the failure of the proletariat (and thus their party, obviously) to break from Social Democracy laid the foundations for warping of the word "socialism", and they honestly believed they were "building socialism", it just that this "socialism" was "the (re- [in Russia's case])development and massive growth of capitalism in the 20th century", a particularly gruesome form of state capitalism.

this

True! It's just that "socialism" in this context can no longer mean what it used to.

See

kek related

ifunny.co/fun/kulQV2U74?gallery=tag&query=alexjones

Who says the peasants would fight for the state and not turn themselves over so thei family's dont get tortured, just giving the nazi's more guns which Russia struggled to produce enough of in the first place?

is that ron paul

Here you are largely correct. Except that the USSR was neither state capitalist nor "particularly gruesome" in its rapid development

Here you're just shitposting like the smug little idiot that you are

This pretty much highlights, as well as lack of ability to engage in democracy, why peasants and socialism have always been incompatable. Maybe if Russia had support from first world socialist states but they were never established.

Good thing we dont have peasants anymore.

How?

When I said:
I didn't mean as to sarcastically say, "you're argument works, with the exception that the words have different definitions".
I mean that the word "socialism" literally started to mean something different because it could no longer refer to what it used to

*your argument works…

idpolyp logic, in a nutshell.

So what if they were kulaks.
Tankies, which is worse?
Kulaks or fascists?
I love how Tankies will celebrate the murder of innocent human beings (kulacks) then try to smear their victims as "those spooky evil capitalists).

No wonder why most people are repulsed by you dictator celebrating LARPERS.
inb4 accusations of "reactionary" and "liberal".
Do you realize most people consider themselves to be liberals? Maybe try an edgier insult. I'll just enjoy myself in my nice house while you delusional, semi homeless idiots babbling on about "the revolution" continue in impotence and misery.

State execution of a relatively large group of people isn't itself the wrong. Such things will happen during the revolutionary terror, but this was no revolutionary terror.

It's wrong because it was the actions of a bourgeois nation-state in the process of attempting to solidify and develop capitalism in an era where capitalism no longer needs to develop.

Such a massive and brutal campaign as the one(s) in the USSR can't be carried out by a DotP, not because it's morally wrong, but because it is simply incapable of such a thing, only a stable, bourgeois state, in a stable mode of production can organize such a horror.

Even if the campaigns themselves were necessary/"justified" for russia's development, associating such a thing with socialism is a crime against the international proletariat.

kys you classist piece of shit.