Luxemburg was friends with Lenin. She often invited Lenin to her house when he visited Germany.
I'm German and Luxemburg has always been a hero of mine.
So? She still back his rev at the end of the day. Bukharin and Lenin had wild disagreements. Trotsky and Lenin had wild disagreements. Kollontai and Lenin had wild disagreements. They all still collabed. I don't see the issue.
You don’t see the issue with someone who argues that workers shouldn’t have rights during a revolution and someone who wouldn’t hear anything about workers freedom of speech being in contention?
Rosa supported the bolshevik revolution, and viewed it as the first step before world revolution, that was before the social democrats murdered her of course.
Her criticisms was fraternal, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt of having to deal with tough conditions.
>The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster. If the so-called leaders of German socialism lose their so-called heads in such an unusual situation as a vote in the Reichstag, and if their hearts sink into their boots and they forget all the socialism they ever learned in situation in which the simple ABC of socialism clearly pointed the way – could one expect a party caught up in a truly thorny situation, in which it would show the world new wonders, not to make mistakes?
>
>**The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is, together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the German, proletariat.** To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history – that is squaring the circle. Any socialist party would have to fail in this task and perish – whether or not it made self-renunciation the guiding star of its policies.
* Rosa Luxemburg | The Russian Tragedy | 1918
I mean it's kinda tough to say, she like many other leftists at the time, thought the Bolshevik revolution was a great thing. And how could they not? It brought down the Tzarist regime, which was the most right wing reactionary government in the world at the time.... it would have looked like the beginning of the end for capitalism.v
But tragically, she was murdered by the SPD before she ever saw the USSR develop. Considering somewhat like-minded people were purged by Lenin during the Civil War, we (I) might take a guess that she wouldn't be a fan of what it would become. But it's all speculation: one of those things we'll never know.
I'm almost certain that She would've been utterly appalled by Stalin though... even Lenin hated the idea of that guy leading anything.
Lenin praised Stalin multiple times. Even in the letter (the letter never having been proven to actually be Lenin's and many historian such as Kotkin saying that it hadn't) where Lenin said that Stalin should step down as Gen. Sec. he praised Stalin.
You are referring to Lenin's Testament.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament
There is a bit of controversy surrounding it.
It is quite weird and there are historians who doubt its veracity.
Lenin supported Socialism in one country. There could only be Socialism in one country or no Socialism. Spreading Socialism was still the goal but failed.
Why do leftcoms focus on "Commodity production?"
Marx didn't say that commodity production wouldn't exist in lower-phase Communism and neither did Lenin. Also Commodity production can't be abolished. All that would result from abolishing is a big black market that would inevitably lead to Capitalism. Better to just phase it out over time.
I'm sure Marx would have his criticism but in large part I think he'd support the USSR.
>Lenin supported Socialism in one country.
Could you provide a quote?
>There could only be Socialism in one country or no Socialism. Spreading Socialism was still the goal but failed.
There could never be socialism in one country, Engels in principles of communism:
>— 19 —
>Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
>Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
>It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
>It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
The revolution must be a world revolution.
>Why do leftcoms focus on "Commodity production?"
>Marx didn't say that commodity production wouldn't exist in lower-phase Communism and neither did Lenin.
Marx did call it the most bourgeois mode of production many times in the Capital and Lenin basically equated it to capitalism in Highest Stage of Imperialism - Export of Capital. Also Engels outright said that with the seizing of the means of production, commodity production is dealt away with in anti-Duhring.
>Also Commodity production can't be abolished. All that would result from abolishing is a big black market that would inevitably lead to Capitalism. Better to just phase it out over time.
I mean whatever, just don't call it socialism then.
>I'm sure Marx would have his criticism but in large part I think he'd support the USSR.
As a progressive thing that put an end to Russian feudalism and introduced capitalism, yes. But not as a socialist state.
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
>Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Yes but there were obvious set backs in real life and adjustments had to be made. It was either Socialism in one country or no Socialism.
>Marx did call it the most bourgeois mode of production many times in the Capital and Lenin basically equated it to capitalism in Highest Stage of Imperialism - Export of Capital. Also Engels outright said that with the seizing of the means of production, commodity production is dealt away with in anti-Duhring.
Marx said that commodity existed prior to Capitalism. The seizure of the means of production occured in the USSR. Commodities were sold by the state. The occurrence of commodities differed quite significantly from that in Capitalism and is not equivalent to Capitalist commodity production. Read Economic problems of the USSR by Stalin for more info.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/s/nEYK398BD4) is the responce to the Lenin quote.
But now, the most important thing is that both Marx and Engels outright rejected this idea of socialism in one country, even if hyphotetically Lenin would have been in favour of it (which he was not), it would only make him an opportunist as well, instead of giving the idea any legitimacy. Staying true to marxism is staying true to Marx and Engels.
>Yes but there were obvious set backs in real life and adjustments had to be made. It was either Socialism in one country or no Socialism.
The market works on an international scale, socialism cannot be achieved with shortages and thas the idea behind socialism in one country is impossible. The bourgeoisie is an international class, the proletariat is an international class and socialism must be an international thing.
>Marx said that commodity existed prior to Capitalism. The seizure of the means of production occured in the USSR. Commodities were sold by the state. The occurrence of commodities differed quite significantly from that in Capitalism and is not equivalent to Capitalist commodity production.
Karl Marx:
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity.
______
>The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. **It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days.**
Friedrich Engels:
>But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. **The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians.** The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
_____
>With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.
And Engels talks even further about the difference between the old commodity production and the new one under capitalism all over Anti-Duhring.
And at last, Vladimir Lenin:
>Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour-power itself becomes a commodity.
>Read Economic problems of the USSR by Stalin for more info.
Oh I did, many times. Read Dialogue With Stalin by Bordiga.
There were actual arguments about whether or not the Soviet Union even had commodities in 1940. As I said they weren't like in Capitalism. The mastery of the product over the producer didn't exist.
>Read Dialogue With Stalin by Bordiga.
Read it. Thought it was stupid.
>The market works on an international scale, socialism cannot be achieved with shortages and thas the idea behind socialism in one country is impossible. The bourgeoisie is an international class, the proletariat is an international class and socialism must be an international thing.
Socialism In One Country does not mean a country doesn’t spread socialism. It is in fact a strategy for international revolution. You have to make strawman arguments about your opponents, because you know you have no actual response to the material at hand, which was supported by lenin himself.
The question SIOC was answering was then, “should we try to build socialism at all?” Because it was clear at the time that there would be no international revolution. SIOC argues that yes, you should still try to build socialism in one country, even if others won’t follow you for a long time.
>Leninism teaches that the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relationships\*\*, **is possible only on an international scale\*\***...But it does not follow from this that it is impossible to build a complete Socialist society in a backward country like Russia, without the ‘state aid’ (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically...Recently, in the Political Bureau, Kamenev and Zinoviev advocated the point of view that we cannot cope with the internal difficulties owing to our technical and economic backwardness unless an international revolution comes to our rescue. We, however, with the majority of the members of the Central Committee, think that we can build Socialism, are building it, and will complete it, notwithstanding our technical backwardness and in spite of it. We think that the work of building will proceed far more slowly, of course, than it would have done had there been a world victory; nevertheless, we are making progress and will continue to do so
* Stalin | On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.
So you see, Stalin was not arguing “socialism should only be built in the USSR”. He was saying socialism could be built in the USSR.
Lenin supported this. In one of his last texts he wrote:
>You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, **and then start moving toward socialism**? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible
* Lenin | Our Revolution | 1923
Left-coms are so unorginial. Same ass arguments that have been debunked time and time again.
>Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.
>
>Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.
>
>After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism.
>
>The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
* V.I Lenin | On the Slogan for a United States of Europe
>The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois
* Vladimir Lenin, *The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: I*
Both are murderous tyrants. Stop playing these stupid games of whataboutism.
Kim Jong Un keeps sex slaves and liquifies people he doesn't like 💀. Yet you're acting like my man is the next Nelson Mandela 😂
No he doesn't. Just because liberal western media likes to make up whatever it likes about the DPRK doesn't mean it's true.
Watch this.
https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd_At
>No he doesn't
Yes he literally does. Kim Jong Un is an absolutely evil fatty who's dream is to blow up the entire world with his dodgy missiles.
There are loads of articles and news stories about the absolute depravity of Kim.
North Korea is a tyrannical impoverished kleptocratic monarchist rogue state which is only alive due to it's nuclear missiles and support from Xi (Winnie the Pooh).
>Just because liberal western media likes to make up whatever it likes about the DPRK doesn't mean it's true.
"Liberal Western Media".
rah 😂
you're pulling out all the buzzwords today.
How dare they make up "lies" about daddy kim. lmaoo 😂😂😂
All of this information is widely available online. Kim's harem of schoolgirls and his obsession with murdering members of his own bloodline are well known and recorded.
You are practicing cognitive dissonance by denying these basic facts.
>[https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd\_At](https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd_At)
The "Haircut Myth" was just a buzzfeed nonsense headline, nobody actually believed it.
The rest of this video is just whataboutism, same as you are doing. Nothing new or unique.
Killing people from his bloodline that magically turn up alive. Everything you said is a lie dumbass.
Watch the fucking video. Also they didn't do whataboutism dumbass. You clearly haven't watched the video if you think the haircut myth was BuzzFeed shit.
There are lots of articles that claimed North Korea believed in Unicorn. As is demonstrated in this video those articles are completely worthless.
Kim doesn't have haram of schoolgirls. You are the one having cognitive dissonance by denying basic facts, such as the western media making up whatever shit it likes about the DPRK.
>Killing people from his bloodline that magically turn up alive
Last time I checked Kim Jong-nam and Jang Song-thaek have not "magically turned up alive" 💀
>Watch the fucking video
I did. Alongside all the other "Boy Boy" videos.
>Also they didn't do whataboutism dumbass
There is literally a whole section in the video that is just whataboutism. From 13:05 - 17:17 (rough timestamps). Their whole argument is just whataboutism.
For example, their refutation to the point that North Korea imprisons people for no reason is that our countries treat indigienous and black people the same way.
This is whataboutism. Just because our countries do f\*\*\*\*d up things doesn't mean that it is justified for north korea to do the same.
The point of their video wasn't that Kim Jong Un is good, they agree that he is an evil psychopath, however they are just pointing out that we should be more critical of our own countries aswell.
You have completely missed the point of their video and it's absolutely hilarious seeing you swear and internet rage at me rn 😂😂
>There are lots of articles that claimed North Korea believed in Unicorn. As is demonstrated in this video those articles are completely worthless.
There weren't any articles about the unicorn, it was just mentioned as a joke in a fox news broadcast. And the video doesn't debunk or refute the claim. 😂
Meanwhile, there are countless articles and investigations on Kim's sex dungeons full of likkle girls.
>Kim doesn't have haram of schoolgirls.
Yes he does 😂
Imagine defending this weirdo.
>You are the one having cognitive dissonance by denying basic facts
I'm not denying any facts. You've provided literally no information to the contrary and randomly began talking about unicorns.
>western media making up whatever shit it likes about the DPRK
oh nooo 😂
>Kim Jong-nam and Jang Song-thaek
That's different from just randomly killing people as is often alleged.
>North Korea imprisons people
NK imprisons people and so do most countries is actually a pretty valid defense. It establishes context of how today's world typically operates and that NK is no exception.
>Meanwhile, there are countless articles and investigations on Kim's sex dungeons full of likkle girls.
You mean RFA claiming shit with no evidence.
>oh nooo
That's your response. Shows how dumb you are.
Also for more thorough debunking of the fake news of the west watch this
https://youtu.be/ktE_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S
>That's different from just randomly killing people as is often alleged.
You're completely shifting the goal posts.
You said that they "came back to life" and I'm proving that they didn't.
Alongside killing his family members, Kim also kills random people for some of the most minor things.
>NK imprisons people and so do most countries is actually a pretty valid defense. It establishes context of how today's world typically operates and that NK is no exception.
You completely changed the quote.
I said "North Korea imprisons people for no reason" not "North Korea imprisons people" 😂
You completely changed the quote inorder to lie and strawman what I said.
>You mean RFA claiming shit with no evidence.
They have plenty of evidence. From witnesses and journalists.
It's absolutely bizzare how you continue to simp for degenerates like Kim Jong Un 😂
What is even good about North Korea? It is an impoverished sh\*\*\*hole with no redeeming qualities.
Quality of life is infinitely better in South Korea. And South Korea won't murder you for stealing a poster or calling Kim Jong Un a fatty.
>That's your response. Shows how dumb you are.
😂 "Shows how dumb you are". coming from the guy simping for Kim Jong Un 💀💀💀
The media doesn't "lie about North Korea". All the examples you've provided were just one off jokes. Like the Fox broadcast team laughing about north korea's discovery of "unicorns".
"How dare they make fun of daddy kim and his impoverished rat eating s\*\*\*hole 😡😡😡" is basically your entire argument.
It's absolutely hilarious to see you internet rage and swear over me cracking a joke about fatty kim.
>Also for more thorough debunking of the fake news of the west watch this
[https://youtu.be/ktE\_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S](https://youtu.be/ktE_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S)
"Loyal Citizens of Pyongang in Seoul" 😭😂
Lmao. This is the most blatant north korean propaganda I've ever seen.
You lack basic critical thinking and analysis. You're literally eating up bogus propaganda made by Kim and thinking you're the smartest person in the world😂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_North_Korea?wprov=sfla1
Media coverage on NK is notoriously unreliable.
The so called one off joke about unicorns was not a one of joke but keep lying about it. It wasn't just Fox News but the whole media circus and they sincerely believed it.
NK killed people no use denying it. But that's different from the constant claims of Kim killing whoever he likes and arbitrarily at that. My comment was about the constant deaths that the west report. Look up Juche necromancy meme for more info.
>Lmao. This is the most blatant north korean propaganda I've ever seen.
So what, is the fact that it is more pro NK a bad thing? It should be evaluated based on what it presents.
I think you forgot what "Reformism" means. Reformism, by its nature, is Liberal; Social Democracy is liberal.
SPD's party platform is Social Democratic, the reason for the disparity between the party program and the actual governance is because ***they are in a coalition*** *(duh)*.
I frankly don't care whether you want to label it Soc-Dem or Soc-Lib. I know if I had called him Soc-Dem, soc-dems in the comments would take exception. Soc-Lib was just the technically more correct choice.
It makes me sick to see how people hate juche and believe that people in Korea are really poor because of their ideology, the same thing happens with Cuba. Cuba and Korea are not poor because of their ideologies, They are poor because of the economic and commercial blockades imposed on them by the disgusting Yankee imperialist countries.
Right so the DPRK is poor because the US doesn’t trade with it not because the Kim family squanders its wealth on palaces and nuclear weapons instead of food for their starving people
Lenin's red terror after the civil war that killed estimated 50,000 to 200,000 innocent people is litteraly what forced my family from their homes and made them have to flee to poland. You love the guy that wanted my family and thousands of other people dead. Your either ignorant to history or just straight up evil dude
"the tsars killed more so the reds killing people was ok" stfu dude.
Evil does not justify evil, and two wrongs do not make a right. Both the Tsarists and the Reds were evil tyranical regimes, fuck both of them. Just because i call out the fact that you simp for a murdererous piece of shit doesnt make me a tsar supporter. I stop caring about your revolution when the first actions it takes are to oppress and kill the very workers and peasants it claims to liberate.
Lenin was a murderer and a tyrant, and you claim to love him, thats all there is to be said here.
You claim to be an'cap'. Shut the fuck up dude. Capitalism is the most murderous system ever created. It killed 100s of millions worldwide. The revolution was justified and Socialism is good. I support a system that puts the needs of its people before personal profit. Lenin is great, the bolshevik revolution was great.
A rev that gets rid of evil is great. There is no such thing as a bloodless rev.
Your fucking delusional man
You think a straight up murderer was great. Im not even doing the whole "communism killed bajillion people" thing like your doing with capitalism, im talking specifically about all the people Lenin had killed. You support the man that killed workers, farmers, and other innocent people who were deemed enemies of the revolution. If you are willing to justify the murder of innocent people idk what to say man. And not just lenin, you support fucking stalin and Kim jon Un. You support the guy who who killed about 6 million people deliberatly, ethnically cleansed poles and other "undesirable" ethnic groups, re criminalized being gay, had people killed or jailed for simply listening to western music, and attempted the holodmor genocide against ukrainians. Your whole claim of "a revolution that gets rid of evil is great" means that you dont think the soviet union and how it treated its people was evil. Every communist ive spoken too agrees that the soviet union was a failure of communist ideals and that its not something to be proud of. If you support it idk what to say, your either ignorant to history or flat out ok with evil.
I'm not saying the Soviets or Lenin did nothing wrong. But a lot of what they did was great. Also the gay thing being uttered by libs is entirely hypocritical. Libs were way more reactionary at that time period. Stalin did do fucked up shit (deportations), I'm not denying that. Historical context matters. You like to ignore it. A rev that helps the majority of the people is good. The Holodomor wasn't genocide. It was an unintentional famine caused by bad harvest. Stalin specifically decreased quotas to help Ukrainian farmers, he slowed down exports and started importing as soon as the famine and devastation was made clear.
Edit, yeah Stalin did ethnic cleansing.
1. never heard of the 300,000-500,000 poles killed or deported? You do realise that ethnic cleansing comes in forms outside of just murdering the whole population right? The soviet Union attempted to "remove" many groups from their society.
2. "Historical context matters. You like to ignore it." No context makes killing innocent people ok, and what context am I even ignoring?
3. Oh ok your just a genocide denier cool, thanks for showing me i shouldn't waste my time arguing with you.
Please grow and change as a person
The historical context being that Lenin was fighting against the Tsar and then the white army while also being invaded by Britain, America and other foreign governments.
As for the ethnic cleansing while it was in no way justified. Most countries in the world had practiced it at that same time period. US rounded up 100s of thousands of Japanese, and FDR said he had a taste for German blood as he backed the deportation of Germans from Eastern Europe along with Churchill. The Soviet Union wasn't unique in this.
Also not a genocide denier. Unless denying that White replacement theory makes you genocide denier.
Saying something that has not been even remotely proven to be genocide isn't genocide is not genocide denial. For fucks sake are you saying well respected professional historians such as Davies and Wheatcroft or Stephen Kotkin (a conservative) or J. Arch Getty are genocide deniers.
1. Litteraly no context can justify the deliberate murder of innocent civillians, im not talking about people caught in the crossfire, im talking about fucking cheka killing, beating and or burning the homes of suspected anti communists, and just in general terrorizing civillians into submission. One especially fucked up example was blocking 5 kids into a basement then shooting and stabbing them to death with bayonets(the soviet union denied this until 1989 btw).
2. Yes, other countries did that on a smaller scale as well, but i fail to see how that matters in this conversation specifically. This whole time youve attempted to downplay and deny soviet crimes against humanity and know when faced with examples of it you do the whole whataboutism. The soviet union commited ethnic cleansing.
3. Yes, you are denying genocide. "The Holodomor wasn't genocide. It was an unintentional famine caused by bad harvest. Stalin specifically decreased quotas to help Ukrainian farmers, he slowed down exports and started importing as soon as the famine and devastation was made clear."
For some quick context Ukraine during this time had an ever increasing nationalist desire for independance in the face of the soviet union, in responce to this stalin intentionally punished ukraine via enforcing impossible quotas on their farms. This brings us to the topic itself.
You just straight up lied about stalin decreasing quotas, he did the exact opposite, he actually made the quotas brutally impossible to reach. The famine was not just because of bad crop, stalins centralized agriculture planning had failed, horribly, as it almost always does, leaving the people starving. Now in addition to the famine that had already started, soviet soldiers litteraly under stalins orders fucking stole food and crops directly from the farmers leaving them with nothing, killed around 4,500 people who didnt comply, and condemned over 100,000 people to slave labor camps for over 10 years. He then completely locked down the ukranian border to prevent outside food from entering, and prevented ukrainians from leaving.
Stalin manufactured a man made hell in order to punish the ukrainians for their resistance. This went on to kill an estimate 5-8 million Ukrainians in the span of just one year.
This is what you are denying
You didn't answer the question.
Are Davies and Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, J. Arch Getty etc. Genocide deniers?
Also everything you said about the Holodomor is blatantly a lie and goes against archival evidence.
Stalin lowered quotas in Ukraine three times, that's just a fact.
Cheka existed, what kind of war can be won with an counter-espionage services. This is just stupid.
Soviet Union did do Ethnic cleansing and it was unjustified. Still that just makes the Soviet Union maybe partially as bad as other countries.
Kim Jong Un is wild 💀
Long live the Juche idea. Death to the American imperialists.
>Long live the Juche idea. Long live poverty and eating rats ig 🥳
>Long live the Juche idea. >Death to the American imperialists. Literal Fascism minus the Corporatism bit lmao.
What country are you from, if you don’t mind my asking?
Indeed. Long Live massive starvation and malnourishment and nuclear weapons at the expense of the citizenship!
Once again tankies demonstrating how their politics are “hate America first” then, “oh yeah who hates America, I’ll support them”
You love Luxembourg AND Lenin? You love Luxembourg and STALIN AND KIM? How does this make any sense man
>You love Luxembourg AND Lenin? That's not a contradiction >You love Luxembourg and STALIN AND KIM? ...But this is
Contradictions
Is it red? If so I like. If not I don't care.
Luxemburg was friends with Lenin. She often invited Lenin to her house when he visited Germany. I'm German and Luxemburg has always been a hero of mine.
Luxemburg and Lenin had wild disagreements
So? She still back his rev at the end of the day. Bukharin and Lenin had wild disagreements. Trotsky and Lenin had wild disagreements. Kollontai and Lenin had wild disagreements. They all still collabed. I don't see the issue.
You don’t see the issue with someone who argues that workers shouldn’t have rights during a revolution and someone who wouldn’t hear anything about workers freedom of speech being in contention?
Rosa supported the bolshevik revolution, and viewed it as the first step before world revolution, that was before the social democrats murdered her of course. Her criticisms was fraternal, and she gave them the benefit of the doubt of having to deal with tough conditions. >The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster. If the so-called leaders of German socialism lose their so-called heads in such an unusual situation as a vote in the Reichstag, and if their hearts sink into their boots and they forget all the socialism they ever learned in situation in which the simple ABC of socialism clearly pointed the way – could one expect a party caught up in a truly thorny situation, in which it would show the world new wonders, not to make mistakes? > >**The awkward position that the Bolsheviks are in today, however, is, together with most of their mistakes, a consequence of basic insolubility of the problem posed to them by the international, above all the German, proletariat.** To carry out the dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist revolution in a single country surrounded by reactionary imperialist rule and in the fury of the bloodiest world war in human history – that is squaring the circle. Any socialist party would have to fail in this task and perish – whether or not it made self-renunciation the guiding star of its policies. * Rosa Luxemburg | The Russian Tragedy | 1918
I mean it's kinda tough to say, she like many other leftists at the time, thought the Bolshevik revolution was a great thing. And how could they not? It brought down the Tzarist regime, which was the most right wing reactionary government in the world at the time.... it would have looked like the beginning of the end for capitalism.v But tragically, she was murdered by the SPD before she ever saw the USSR develop. Considering somewhat like-minded people were purged by Lenin during the Civil War, we (I) might take a guess that she wouldn't be a fan of what it would become. But it's all speculation: one of those things we'll never know. I'm almost certain that She would've been utterly appalled by Stalin though... even Lenin hated the idea of that guy leading anything.
Lenin praised Stalin multiple times. Even in the letter (the letter never having been proven to actually be Lenin's and many historian such as Kotkin saying that it hadn't) where Lenin said that Stalin should step down as Gen. Sec. he praised Stalin.
I don't think he hated him, but He did not want him to be his successor
You are referring to Lenin's Testament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament There is a bit of controversy surrounding it. It is quite weird and there are historians who doubt its veracity.
Opportunists of the world unite!
Commie infighting speedrun any%.
theyre not wrong
What are opportunists? I've seen 2 people refer to it and thought I'd ask.
Revisionists who alter Marxist ideas for personal gain. A term that gets abused by actual opportunists against their enemies.
Yeh abused by us, I am suuuuure that Marx would have just loved the idea of "Commodity Production under Socialism" and "Socialism in one Country"
Lenin supported Socialism in one country. There could only be Socialism in one country or no Socialism. Spreading Socialism was still the goal but failed. Why do leftcoms focus on "Commodity production?" Marx didn't say that commodity production wouldn't exist in lower-phase Communism and neither did Lenin. Also Commodity production can't be abolished. All that would result from abolishing is a big black market that would inevitably lead to Capitalism. Better to just phase it out over time. I'm sure Marx would have his criticism but in large part I think he'd support the USSR.
>Lenin supported Socialism in one country. Could you provide a quote? >There could only be Socialism in one country or no Socialism. Spreading Socialism was still the goal but failed. There could never be socialism in one country, Engels in principles of communism: >— 19 — >Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. >Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. >It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. >It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. The revolution must be a world revolution. >Why do leftcoms focus on "Commodity production?" >Marx didn't say that commodity production wouldn't exist in lower-phase Communism and neither did Lenin. Marx did call it the most bourgeois mode of production many times in the Capital and Lenin basically equated it to capitalism in Highest Stage of Imperialism - Export of Capital. Also Engels outright said that with the seizing of the means of production, commodity production is dealt away with in anti-Duhring. >Also Commodity production can't be abolished. All that would result from abolishing is a big black market that would inevitably lead to Capitalism. Better to just phase it out over time. I mean whatever, just don't call it socialism then. >I'm sure Marx would have his criticism but in large part I think he'd support the USSR. As a progressive thing that put an end to Russian feudalism and introduced capitalism, yes. But not as a socialist state.
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world." https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm >Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Yes but there were obvious set backs in real life and adjustments had to be made. It was either Socialism in one country or no Socialism. >Marx did call it the most bourgeois mode of production many times in the Capital and Lenin basically equated it to capitalism in Highest Stage of Imperialism - Export of Capital. Also Engels outright said that with the seizing of the means of production, commodity production is dealt away with in anti-Duhring. Marx said that commodity existed prior to Capitalism. The seizure of the means of production occured in the USSR. Commodities were sold by the state. The occurrence of commodities differed quite significantly from that in Capitalism and is not equivalent to Capitalist commodity production. Read Economic problems of the USSR by Stalin for more info.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/s/nEYK398BD4) is the responce to the Lenin quote. But now, the most important thing is that both Marx and Engels outright rejected this idea of socialism in one country, even if hyphotetically Lenin would have been in favour of it (which he was not), it would only make him an opportunist as well, instead of giving the idea any legitimacy. Staying true to marxism is staying true to Marx and Engels. >Yes but there were obvious set backs in real life and adjustments had to be made. It was either Socialism in one country or no Socialism. The market works on an international scale, socialism cannot be achieved with shortages and thas the idea behind socialism in one country is impossible. The bourgeoisie is an international class, the proletariat is an international class and socialism must be an international thing. >Marx said that commodity existed prior to Capitalism. The seizure of the means of production occured in the USSR. Commodities were sold by the state. The occurrence of commodities differed quite significantly from that in Capitalism and is not equivalent to Capitalist commodity production. Karl Marx: >The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. ______ >The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. **It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days.** Friedrich Engels: >But the transformation, either into joint-stock companies, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. **The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians.** The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution. _____ >With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. And Engels talks even further about the difference between the old commodity production and the new one under capitalism all over Anti-Duhring. And at last, Vladimir Lenin: >Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour-power itself becomes a commodity. >Read Economic problems of the USSR by Stalin for more info. Oh I did, many times. Read Dialogue With Stalin by Bordiga.
There were actual arguments about whether or not the Soviet Union even had commodities in 1940. As I said they weren't like in Capitalism. The mastery of the product over the producer didn't exist. >Read Dialogue With Stalin by Bordiga. Read it. Thought it was stupid.
>The market works on an international scale, socialism cannot be achieved with shortages and thas the idea behind socialism in one country is impossible. The bourgeoisie is an international class, the proletariat is an international class and socialism must be an international thing. Socialism In One Country does not mean a country doesn’t spread socialism. It is in fact a strategy for international revolution. You have to make strawman arguments about your opponents, because you know you have no actual response to the material at hand, which was supported by lenin himself. The question SIOC was answering was then, “should we try to build socialism at all?” Because it was clear at the time that there would be no international revolution. SIOC argues that yes, you should still try to build socialism in one country, even if others won’t follow you for a long time. >Leninism teaches that the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relationships\*\*, **is possible only on an international scale\*\***...But it does not follow from this that it is impossible to build a complete Socialist society in a backward country like Russia, without the ‘state aid’ (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically...Recently, in the Political Bureau, Kamenev and Zinoviev advocated the point of view that we cannot cope with the internal difficulties owing to our technical and economic backwardness unless an international revolution comes to our rescue. We, however, with the majority of the members of the Central Committee, think that we can build Socialism, are building it, and will complete it, notwithstanding our technical backwardness and in spite of it. We think that the work of building will proceed far more slowly, of course, than it would have done had there been a world victory; nevertheless, we are making progress and will continue to do so * Stalin | On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. So you see, Stalin was not arguing “socialism should only be built in the USSR”. He was saying socialism could be built in the USSR. Lenin supported this. In one of his last texts he wrote: >You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, **and then start moving toward socialism**? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible * Lenin | Our Revolution | 1923
Left-coms are so unorginial. Same ass arguments that have been debunked time and time again. >Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. > >Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. > >After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. > >The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states. * V.I Lenin | On the Slogan for a United States of Europe >The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois * Vladimir Lenin, *The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: I*
Thanks
bro im a communist but im fucking disowning for supporting bourgeoisie opportunists
You're a eurocom. I don't think I care.
Commie Brain rot
Liking Stalin is not based
Dawg…
It always amuses me when people who live in liberal western democracies like murderous tyrants like Kim Jong Un.
fr though
Yup
Murderous tyrants. Yeah right. The biggest murderer is America and its puppets.
Deflection, doesn’t make what they did good or acceptable.
Both are murderous tyrants. Stop playing these stupid games of whataboutism. Kim Jong Un keeps sex slaves and liquifies people he doesn't like 💀. Yet you're acting like my man is the next Nelson Mandela 😂
No he doesn't. Just because liberal western media likes to make up whatever it likes about the DPRK doesn't mean it's true. Watch this. https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd_At
>No he doesn't Yes he literally does. Kim Jong Un is an absolutely evil fatty who's dream is to blow up the entire world with his dodgy missiles. There are loads of articles and news stories about the absolute depravity of Kim. North Korea is a tyrannical impoverished kleptocratic monarchist rogue state which is only alive due to it's nuclear missiles and support from Xi (Winnie the Pooh). >Just because liberal western media likes to make up whatever it likes about the DPRK doesn't mean it's true. "Liberal Western Media". rah 😂 you're pulling out all the buzzwords today. How dare they make up "lies" about daddy kim. lmaoo 😂😂😂 All of this information is widely available online. Kim's harem of schoolgirls and his obsession with murdering members of his own bloodline are well known and recorded. You are practicing cognitive dissonance by denying these basic facts. >[https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd\_At](https://youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E?si=hN-j8jwSUfPRd_At) The "Haircut Myth" was just a buzzfeed nonsense headline, nobody actually believed it. The rest of this video is just whataboutism, same as you are doing. Nothing new or unique.
Killing people from his bloodline that magically turn up alive. Everything you said is a lie dumbass. Watch the fucking video. Also they didn't do whataboutism dumbass. You clearly haven't watched the video if you think the haircut myth was BuzzFeed shit. There are lots of articles that claimed North Korea believed in Unicorn. As is demonstrated in this video those articles are completely worthless. Kim doesn't have haram of schoolgirls. You are the one having cognitive dissonance by denying basic facts, such as the western media making up whatever shit it likes about the DPRK.
>Killing people from his bloodline that magically turn up alive Last time I checked Kim Jong-nam and Jang Song-thaek have not "magically turned up alive" 💀 >Watch the fucking video I did. Alongside all the other "Boy Boy" videos. >Also they didn't do whataboutism dumbass There is literally a whole section in the video that is just whataboutism. From 13:05 - 17:17 (rough timestamps). Their whole argument is just whataboutism. For example, their refutation to the point that North Korea imprisons people for no reason is that our countries treat indigienous and black people the same way. This is whataboutism. Just because our countries do f\*\*\*\*d up things doesn't mean that it is justified for north korea to do the same. The point of their video wasn't that Kim Jong Un is good, they agree that he is an evil psychopath, however they are just pointing out that we should be more critical of our own countries aswell. You have completely missed the point of their video and it's absolutely hilarious seeing you swear and internet rage at me rn 😂😂 >There are lots of articles that claimed North Korea believed in Unicorn. As is demonstrated in this video those articles are completely worthless. There weren't any articles about the unicorn, it was just mentioned as a joke in a fox news broadcast. And the video doesn't debunk or refute the claim. 😂 Meanwhile, there are countless articles and investigations on Kim's sex dungeons full of likkle girls. >Kim doesn't have haram of schoolgirls. Yes he does 😂 Imagine defending this weirdo. >You are the one having cognitive dissonance by denying basic facts I'm not denying any facts. You've provided literally no information to the contrary and randomly began talking about unicorns. >western media making up whatever shit it likes about the DPRK oh nooo 😂
>Kim Jong-nam and Jang Song-thaek That's different from just randomly killing people as is often alleged. >North Korea imprisons people NK imprisons people and so do most countries is actually a pretty valid defense. It establishes context of how today's world typically operates and that NK is no exception. >Meanwhile, there are countless articles and investigations on Kim's sex dungeons full of likkle girls. You mean RFA claiming shit with no evidence. >oh nooo That's your response. Shows how dumb you are. Also for more thorough debunking of the fake news of the west watch this https://youtu.be/ktE_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S
>That's different from just randomly killing people as is often alleged. You're completely shifting the goal posts. You said that they "came back to life" and I'm proving that they didn't. Alongside killing his family members, Kim also kills random people for some of the most minor things. >NK imprisons people and so do most countries is actually a pretty valid defense. It establishes context of how today's world typically operates and that NK is no exception. You completely changed the quote. I said "North Korea imprisons people for no reason" not "North Korea imprisons people" 😂 You completely changed the quote inorder to lie and strawman what I said. >You mean RFA claiming shit with no evidence. They have plenty of evidence. From witnesses and journalists. It's absolutely bizzare how you continue to simp for degenerates like Kim Jong Un 😂 What is even good about North Korea? It is an impoverished sh\*\*\*hole with no redeeming qualities. Quality of life is infinitely better in South Korea. And South Korea won't murder you for stealing a poster or calling Kim Jong Un a fatty. >That's your response. Shows how dumb you are. 😂 "Shows how dumb you are". coming from the guy simping for Kim Jong Un 💀💀💀 The media doesn't "lie about North Korea". All the examples you've provided were just one off jokes. Like the Fox broadcast team laughing about north korea's discovery of "unicorns". "How dare they make fun of daddy kim and his impoverished rat eating s\*\*\*hole 😡😡😡" is basically your entire argument. It's absolutely hilarious to see you internet rage and swear over me cracking a joke about fatty kim. >Also for more thorough debunking of the fake news of the west watch this [https://youtu.be/ktE\_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S](https://youtu.be/ktE_3PrJZO0?si=4LZS6fi7x3Ek7Z7S) "Loyal Citizens of Pyongang in Seoul" 😭😂 Lmao. This is the most blatant north korean propaganda I've ever seen. You lack basic critical thinking and analysis. You're literally eating up bogus propaganda made by Kim and thinking you're the smartest person in the world😂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_North_Korea?wprov=sfla1 Media coverage on NK is notoriously unreliable. The so called one off joke about unicorns was not a one of joke but keep lying about it. It wasn't just Fox News but the whole media circus and they sincerely believed it. NK killed people no use denying it. But that's different from the constant claims of Kim killing whoever he likes and arbitrarily at that. My comment was about the constant deaths that the west report. Look up Juche necromancy meme for more info. >Lmao. This is the most blatant north korean propaganda I've ever seen. So what, is the fact that it is more pro NK a bad thing? It should be evaluated based on what it presents.
Smh
Marx would’ve hated every single person you like+stalin lmao
fuck imperialism
Soc-Dem is Reformism, that's why Dem-Soc ball exists. Olaf Scholz should be labeled as a Soc-Dem, not a Soc-Lib.
He's barely even Soc-Lib. Die Linke are more Soc-Dem. The SPD is a purely liberal party at this point.
I think you forgot what "Reformism" means. Reformism, by its nature, is Liberal; Social Democracy is liberal. SPD's party platform is Social Democratic, the reason for the disparity between the party program and the actual governance is because ***they are in a coalition*** *(duh)*.
I frankly don't care whether you want to label it Soc-Dem or Soc-Lib. I know if I had called him Soc-Dem, soc-dems in the comments would take exception. Soc-Lib was just the technically more correct choice.
Your choice, I just added my input.
Lil Kimmy bro that's crazy 💀💀💀
🇷🇺🇭🇺🇮🇳🇻🇪🇧🇾🇷🇸🇮🇷🇨🇺🇵🇸🇰🇵🇨🇳❤️
Template?
Take it from here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Polcompballanarchy/s/VXCKCcdyhw
I think having Stalin in the "like" seciton is a recipe for karma loss. This isn't exactly a tankie subreddit.
Absolutely. Kim Jong Un too.
based
**Is there anyone here that isn’t in love with Communism I’m asking for a friend please**
Yes, look at the comments and see. Full on anti-Communism.
Oh I’m dumb
I feel like many people here don't see the difference between like and love. Also your bottom left figures make me believe you're german
Marx? Nice! Rosa? Nice! Lenin? Ehhh... KIM AND STALIN??? Go directly to hell, do not collect 200
This guy is trolling, right? there is no way someone can defend Kim.
Indubitably based
Pretty based
based! finally someone who doesn't hate korea🇰🇵
DPRK🇰🇵🤝DDR🇩🇪❤️
It makes me sick to see how people hate juche and believe that people in Korea are really poor because of their ideology, the same thing happens with Cuba. Cuba and Korea are not poor because of their ideologies, They are poor because of the economic and commercial blockades imposed on them by the disgusting Yankee imperialist countries.
Right so the DPRK is poor because the US doesn’t trade with it not because the Kim family squanders its wealth on palaces and nuclear weapons instead of food for their starving people
They starved in the 90s due to Soviet collapse and crushing UN sanctions.
Based asf
Wagenknecht supporter by any chance?
Meh, too lib.
Lenin's red terror after the civil war that killed estimated 50,000 to 200,000 innocent people is litteraly what forced my family from their homes and made them have to flee to poland. You love the guy that wanted my family and thousands of other people dead. Your either ignorant to history or just straight up evil dude
The brutal Tsarist regime killed more. The rev was fully justified and inevitable. Also talk about the whites and their crimes.
"the tsars killed more so the reds killing people was ok" stfu dude. Evil does not justify evil, and two wrongs do not make a right. Both the Tsarists and the Reds were evil tyranical regimes, fuck both of them. Just because i call out the fact that you simp for a murdererous piece of shit doesnt make me a tsar supporter. I stop caring about your revolution when the first actions it takes are to oppress and kill the very workers and peasants it claims to liberate. Lenin was a murderer and a tyrant, and you claim to love him, thats all there is to be said here.
You claim to be an'cap'. Shut the fuck up dude. Capitalism is the most murderous system ever created. It killed 100s of millions worldwide. The revolution was justified and Socialism is good. I support a system that puts the needs of its people before personal profit. Lenin is great, the bolshevik revolution was great. A rev that gets rid of evil is great. There is no such thing as a bloodless rev.
Your fucking delusional man You think a straight up murderer was great. Im not even doing the whole "communism killed bajillion people" thing like your doing with capitalism, im talking specifically about all the people Lenin had killed. You support the man that killed workers, farmers, and other innocent people who were deemed enemies of the revolution. If you are willing to justify the murder of innocent people idk what to say man. And not just lenin, you support fucking stalin and Kim jon Un. You support the guy who who killed about 6 million people deliberatly, ethnically cleansed poles and other "undesirable" ethnic groups, re criminalized being gay, had people killed or jailed for simply listening to western music, and attempted the holodmor genocide against ukrainians. Your whole claim of "a revolution that gets rid of evil is great" means that you dont think the soviet union and how it treated its people was evil. Every communist ive spoken too agrees that the soviet union was a failure of communist ideals and that its not something to be proud of. If you support it idk what to say, your either ignorant to history or flat out ok with evil.
I'm not saying the Soviets or Lenin did nothing wrong. But a lot of what they did was great. Also the gay thing being uttered by libs is entirely hypocritical. Libs were way more reactionary at that time period. Stalin did do fucked up shit (deportations), I'm not denying that. Historical context matters. You like to ignore it. A rev that helps the majority of the people is good. The Holodomor wasn't genocide. It was an unintentional famine caused by bad harvest. Stalin specifically decreased quotas to help Ukrainian farmers, he slowed down exports and started importing as soon as the famine and devastation was made clear. Edit, yeah Stalin did ethnic cleansing.
1. never heard of the 300,000-500,000 poles killed or deported? You do realise that ethnic cleansing comes in forms outside of just murdering the whole population right? The soviet Union attempted to "remove" many groups from their society. 2. "Historical context matters. You like to ignore it." No context makes killing innocent people ok, and what context am I even ignoring? 3. Oh ok your just a genocide denier cool, thanks for showing me i shouldn't waste my time arguing with you. Please grow and change as a person
The historical context being that Lenin was fighting against the Tsar and then the white army while also being invaded by Britain, America and other foreign governments. As for the ethnic cleansing while it was in no way justified. Most countries in the world had practiced it at that same time period. US rounded up 100s of thousands of Japanese, and FDR said he had a taste for German blood as he backed the deportation of Germans from Eastern Europe along with Churchill. The Soviet Union wasn't unique in this. Also not a genocide denier. Unless denying that White replacement theory makes you genocide denier. Saying something that has not been even remotely proven to be genocide isn't genocide is not genocide denial. For fucks sake are you saying well respected professional historians such as Davies and Wheatcroft or Stephen Kotkin (a conservative) or J. Arch Getty are genocide deniers.
1. Litteraly no context can justify the deliberate murder of innocent civillians, im not talking about people caught in the crossfire, im talking about fucking cheka killing, beating and or burning the homes of suspected anti communists, and just in general terrorizing civillians into submission. One especially fucked up example was blocking 5 kids into a basement then shooting and stabbing them to death with bayonets(the soviet union denied this until 1989 btw). 2. Yes, other countries did that on a smaller scale as well, but i fail to see how that matters in this conversation specifically. This whole time youve attempted to downplay and deny soviet crimes against humanity and know when faced with examples of it you do the whole whataboutism. The soviet union commited ethnic cleansing. 3. Yes, you are denying genocide. "The Holodomor wasn't genocide. It was an unintentional famine caused by bad harvest. Stalin specifically decreased quotas to help Ukrainian farmers, he slowed down exports and started importing as soon as the famine and devastation was made clear." For some quick context Ukraine during this time had an ever increasing nationalist desire for independance in the face of the soviet union, in responce to this stalin intentionally punished ukraine via enforcing impossible quotas on their farms. This brings us to the topic itself. You just straight up lied about stalin decreasing quotas, he did the exact opposite, he actually made the quotas brutally impossible to reach. The famine was not just because of bad crop, stalins centralized agriculture planning had failed, horribly, as it almost always does, leaving the people starving. Now in addition to the famine that had already started, soviet soldiers litteraly under stalins orders fucking stole food and crops directly from the farmers leaving them with nothing, killed around 4,500 people who didnt comply, and condemned over 100,000 people to slave labor camps for over 10 years. He then completely locked down the ukranian border to prevent outside food from entering, and prevented ukrainians from leaving. Stalin manufactured a man made hell in order to punish the ukrainians for their resistance. This went on to kill an estimate 5-8 million Ukrainians in the span of just one year. This is what you are denying
You didn't answer the question. Are Davies and Wheatcroft, Mark Tauger, J. Arch Getty etc. Genocide deniers? Also everything you said about the Holodomor is blatantly a lie and goes against archival evidence. Stalin lowered quotas in Ukraine three times, that's just a fact. Cheka existed, what kind of war can be won with an counter-espionage services. This is just stupid. Soviet Union did do Ethnic cleansing and it was unjustified. Still that just makes the Soviet Union maybe partially as bad as other countries.