128
"Yes, we were totally the ones that overthrew the Tsar!" - Red fash bootlickers spreading bullshit (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago by [M] to c/historymemes@piefed.social
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Stalin's position as a true believer is dubious at best.

I mean he certainly didn't believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years). The communism s mixed with Stalin's authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there's no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism. Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it's not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn't a true believer he could've been doing literally anything else with his life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    I mean he certainly didn’t believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years).

    What the ever-loving fuck.

    This... this is the same 'communist' economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?

    The communism s mixed with Stalin’s authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there’s no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism.

    Because they... reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China...?

    That's... that's what preparation for communism looks like to you?

    "It's not capitalist so it must be on the way to communism" is not a very good lens with which to view economics.

    Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it’s not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve been doing literally anything else with his life.

    This can't be fucking serious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This... this is the same 'communist' economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?

    Yep, exactly those guys. Again he was authoritarian as fuck, but it's not like the USSR Communists invented authoritarian socialism; that was already a thing by that point. One can be a socialist without believing in democracy.

    Because they... reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China...?

    Premodern China had private property, though, which is the crux of the thing here. Political systems and economic systems influence each other, but in terms of categorization they're more or less orthogonal.

    That's... that's what preparation for communism looks like to you?

    I mean it's not my idea of preparation for communism, but it's an idea of preparation for communism. Industrialization and modernization as prerequisites wouldn't have been particularly controversial. From there the only logical leap needed is "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" and "if we don't hurry they'll fucking kill us" (which is basically what happened). Again I don't agree with the logic, but it does exist and doesn't outwardly contradict socialist ideas if you're willing to take a far-more-than-healthy dose of "the ends justify the means."

    This can't be fucking serious.

    ...why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Yep, exactly those guys. Again he was authoritarian as fuck, but it’s not like the USSR Communists invented authoritarian socialism; that was already a thing by that point. One can be a socialist without believing in democracy.

    ...

    Please note that I cited one-man direction in the workplace.

    In what world is managerial control by bureaucrats in an undemocratic system socialism?

    Premodern China had private property, though, which is the crux of the thing here.

    Technically so did the Stalinist-era Soviet Union. In both cases, to varying degrees, it was marginalized in favor of state control.

    Political systems and economic systems influence each other, but in terms of categorization they’re more or less orthogonal.

    what

    I mean it’s not my idea of preparation for communism, but it’s an idea of preparation for communism. Industrialization and modernization as prerequisites wouldn’t have been particularly controversial.

    ... "Democracy is a prerequisite for socialism" gets you to call the architects indistinguishable from liberals, and therefore unworthy of being called even 'socialist-leaning', but "Genocide and suppression of the proletariat is a prerequisite for socialism" means that it's unfair to call them anything but true-believer communists?

    From there the only logical leap needed is “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” and “if we don’t hurry they’ll fucking kill us” (which is basically what happened).

    fucking what

    …why?

    ... because people use fringe organizations to climb the ladder all the time without being true believers?

    "Every Old Bolshevik, bottom-to-top, was a true believer!" is a fucking insane position to take, and what your claim necessarily implies. Not only that, but it also necessarily suggests many of the socialists you've derided are, likewise, true believers and thus 'deserving' of being called socialists - yet in contradiction to this necessary implication, you parrot the Bolshevik line of them just being liberals painted red (ironic, considering Bolsheviks are fascists painted red, but there's no power like projection). Furthermore, your position suggests that few, if any, major mass murderers were anything but true believers, not opportunists, which is dubious at best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent