The Ukrainian War V: Tanks For The Memories

[United States Reborn]

This is your brain...

...this is your brain on Ukrainian nationalism.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Archinstincts support of Ukraine that extends to the point of foolishness and absurdity.

[Adamede]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Archinstincts support of Ukraine that extends to the point of foolishness and absurdity.

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

[Raskana]

Archinstincts support of Ukraine that extends to the point of foolishness and absurdity.

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

A dictatorship the is presently glorifying Stalin no less.

[United States Reborn]

Archinstincts support of Ukraine that extends to the point of foolishness and absurdity.

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

It's the ideal American Way™.

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

A dictatorship the is presently glorifying Stalin no less.

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

[El Lazaro]

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

It's the ideal Traitors’ Way™.

FTFY

[Raskana]

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

Putin,s Russia has recently erected a brand new statue of Stalin, and most Russians see him as a heroic figure.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-volgogra ... 51951.html

[United States Reborn]

It's the ideal Traitors’ Way™.

FTFY

Traitorous to the current political order, yes. Proudly, too.

[Deblar]

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

It's the ideal American Way™.

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this rn

[Sutalia]

Didn't know. Honestly they don't use the language that other MLs use when defending Russia. They use language and arguments i'd expect more from MAGA and alt-right neo-fascists.

Putinism is not Marxism Leninism. Rather, Putinism, especially considering that Putin's favorite philosopher (the Russian fascist Ivan Ilyin) was proudly a fascist, has been moving in a fascist direction for some time. Marxism Leninism, on the other hand, was founded by Stalin (and adopted with modifications by Mao). Stalin is sometimes called, by his intellectual opponents, a red fascist, but that issue is debatable. Even though I oppose Stalin's first principle, "socialism in one country" (as do all Trotskyists), I prefer not to use pejoratives.

Yet, Lenin himself, from his writings, would have strongly disagreed with many (perhaps most) of Stalin's theoretical framework (as did Trotsky). That doesn't make either Lenin or Trotsky flawless. They were just ordinary human beings. However, at least, as some critics have humorously observed, they were not Stalinists.

Nevertheless, most modern-day iterations of Marxism Leninism have become joined at the hip to Putinism. As I suggested earlier (using other terminology), this fact can best be explained by the idiom, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. To the majority of Marxist Leninists, only the West is imperialist, not Russia.

Consistent with Putin's affection for fascism and his desire to undermine Western imperialism, he has been supporting fascist and other far-right movements around the world. It is difficult to imagine that even Stalin would stoop so low. Actually, Stalin initially wanted to be friends with the West (considering that Russia was one of the Allies in World War II). It was the West which turned against him and initiated the Cold War.

Suggesting that the West started the Cold War is blatant revisionism. Stalin was unwilling to let go of conquered territory.

[United States Reborn]

It's the ideal American Way™.

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this rn

They're rolling in their graves at the sight of modern America anyway.

I think they'd prefer my version.

[Hispida]

Didn't know. Honestly they don't use the language that other MLs use when defending Russia. They use language and arguments i'd expect more from MAGA and alt-right neo-fascists.

Putinism is not Marxism Leninism. Rather, Putinism, especially considering that Putin's favorite philosopher (the Russian fascist Ivan Ilyin) was proudly a fascist, has been moving in a fascist direction for some time. Marxism Leninism, on the other hand, was founded by Stalin (and adopted with modifications by Mao). Stalin is sometimes called, by his intellectual opponents, a red fascist, but that issue is debatable. Even though I oppose Stalin's first principle, "socialism in one country" (as do all Trotskyists), I prefer not to use pejoratives.

Yet, Lenin himself, from his writings, would have strongly disagreed with many (perhaps most) of Stalin's theoretical framework (as did Trotsky).

ugh. look, i know this isn't the thread for this, and i won't say any more than this, but this is just kinda wrong. socialism in one country wasn't a part of stalin's "theoretical framework" (which was, more or less, just a direct continuation of lenin's theories -- and even then, stalin didn't add much outside of "Marxism and the National Question" which is pretty solid albeit has some flaws). hell, it wasn't even stalin's. it was bukharin's, and more or less was just an evolution on lenin's ideas of foreign policy after the failures of the german revolution, hungarian revolution, and polish-soviet war.

socialism in one country isn't a theory. it was a policy, just like the NEP, or dekulakization, or what-have-you. marxism-leninism is still an internationalist ideology: the material conditions of the soviet union, europe, and the world as a whole, however, didn't make an internationalist policy possible: see the reactions to the hungarian, russian, and german revolutions! socialism in one country is a part of ML theory just as much as the molotov-ribbentrop pact is: which is to say, it isn't. hell, the USSR during stalin's time still supported foreign communist groups!

[Deblar]

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this rn

They're rolling in their graves at the sight of modern America anyway.

I think they'd prefer my version.

Ah yes, the people who literally rebelled against Britain in the first place because they viewed it's attempts at helicopter parenting as tyrannical would prefer a tyrannical American dictatorship. Checks out

[Raskana]

They're rolling in their graves at the sight of modern America anyway.

I think they'd prefer my version.

Ah yes, the people who literally rebelled against Britain in the first place because they viewed it's attempts at helicopter parenting as tyrannical would prefer a tyrannical American dictatorship. Checks out

Probably by a former KGB member, for good measure.

[Hispida]

They're rolling in their graves at the sight of modern America anyway.

I think they'd prefer my version.

Ah yes, the people who literally rebelled against Britain in the first place because they viewed it's attempts at helicopter parenting as tyrannical would prefer a tyrannical American dictatorship. Checks out

*looks over at john adams*

[Deblar]

Ah yes, the people who literally rebelled against Britain in the first place because they viewed it's attempts at helicopter parenting as tyrannical would prefer a tyrannical American dictatorship. Checks out

*looks over at john adams*

We don't talk about Adams, no, no, no

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Weird I didn't hit a paywall and I'm not a paying subscriber. Typically if I do hit a paywall I archive it myself, my apologies.

There is actually a trick to eliminate all (or almost all) paywalls. However, posting it here would be inappropriate. See Jason Unruhe's latest video on YouTube.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Suggesting that the West started the Cold War is blatant revisionism. Stalin was unwilling to let go of conquered territory.

IMO, that issue would have been resolved, through negotiations, if not for the hostility toward the Soviet Union. Needless to say, I am no friend of Stalin and Marxism Leninism in most forms, but I try to call balls and strikes as I see them.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

... i know this isn't the thread for this, and i won't say any more than this, but this is just kinda wrong. socialism in one country wasn't a part of stalin's "theoretical framework" (which was, more or less, just a direct continuation of lenin's theories -- and even then, stalin didn't add much outside of "Marxism and the National Question" which is pretty solid albeit has some flaws). hell, it wasn't even stalin's. it was bukharin's, and more or less was just an evolution on lenin's ideas of foreign policy after the failures of the german revolution, hungarian revolution, and polish-soviet war.

It was because he adopted it. Whether Lenin agreed with it has been a point of contention between Marxist Leninists and Trotskyists for some time. (Personally, I could care less about personalities, so I am not concerned one way or the other.) However, as you said, we have gone off topic.

socialism in one country isn't a theory. it was a policy, just like the NEP, or dekulakization, or what-have-you. marxism-leninism is still an internationalist ideology: the material conditions of the soviet union, europe, and the world as a whole, however, didn't make an internationalist policy possible: see the reactions to the hungarian, russian, and german revolutions! socialism in one country is a part of ML theory just as much as the molotov-ribbentrop pact is: which is to say, it isn't. hell, the USSR during stalin's time still supported foreign communist groups!

A theory, in scientific nomenclature, is an explanation. There are grand theories, micro-theories, and middle-range theories (Robert Merton's term).

[Ifreann]

I suggested that his posts were so divorced from reality as to be the product of ill-advised drug consumption and he read this as me telling him to kill himself, which is all part of a communist plot to get him banned from NSG by the socialist mods.

This is your brain...

...this is your brain on Ukrainian nationalism.

I don't think it's anything to do with Ukrainian nationalism. I would suggest that Archinstinct takes his "NAFO" Russia trolling entirely too seriously. Of course, countering Russian propaganda on social media and trolling those who peddle it is a fine use of one's time, but when you start thinking that every socialist and communist is a secret Kremlin agent until proven otherwise then you could probably do with taking a break.

[Punished UMN]

It’s Time to Bring Back the Polish-Lithuanian Union

Whose "we" lmao, if Poland and Lithuania wanted to form a union, no one would stop them.

[Gupta Bharat]

... i know this isn't the thread for this, and i won't say any more than this, but this is just kinda wrong. socialism in one country wasn't a part of stalin's "theoretical framework" (which was, more or less, just a direct continuation of lenin's theories -- and even then, stalin didn't add much outside of "Marxism and the National Question" which is pretty solid albeit has some flaws). hell, it wasn't even stalin's. it was bukharin's, and more or less was just an evolution on lenin's ideas of foreign policy after the failures of the german revolution, hungarian revolution, and polish-soviet war.

It was because he adopted it. Whether Lenin agreed with it has been a point of contention between Marxist Leninists and Trotskyists for some time. (Personally, I could care less about personalities, so I am not concerned one way or the other.) However, as you said, we have gone off topic.

socialism in one country isn't a theory. it was a policy, just like the NEP, or dekulakization, or what-have-you. marxism-leninism is still an internationalist ideology: the material conditions of the soviet union, europe, and the world as a whole, however, didn't make an internationalist policy possible: see the reactions to the hungarian, russian, and german revolutions! socialism in one country is a part of ML theory just as much as the molotov-ribbentrop pact is: which is to say, it isn't. hell, the USSR during stalin's time still supported foreign communist groups!

A theory, in scientific nomenclature, is an explanation. There are grand theories, micro-theories, and middle-range theories (Robert Merton's term).

From what I heard, despite Lenin's fondness for Trotsky, he viewed him ultimately as a rival. Lenin tended to get outvoted by his own Politburo and Central Committee at times, and Trotsky was no small part of it. He (Lenin) kept elevating Stalin as a pawn, not thinking much of the man's intellect. At one point, while looking into a Commissar for Nationalities, he is said to have remarked, "We don't need anyone that smart. Let's appoint Stalin." By the time that he realized that Stalin was dangerous, having used the General Secretary post to concentrate much power, and by the time that he decided that he definitely wanted Trotsky as his successor, it was far too late.

By the time that Stalin began his "Socialism In One Country" vs. "Endless Revolution" debate with Trotsky, it was nothing more than a pretext for what had already started. He had Zinoviev and others on his side, he had Trotsky outmaneuvered, and it was just a matter of time before Stalin completed his power grab.

[Ifreann]

It’s Time to Bring Back the Polish-Lithuanian Union

Whose "we" lmao, if Poland and Lithuania wanted to form a union, no one would stop them.

The Teutonic Order might object.

[Gupta Bharat]

Whose "we" lmao, if Poland and Lithuania wanted to form a union, no one would stop them.

The Teutonic Order might object.

Lol...but in all seriousness, some kind of Central European bloc would be a great bulwark against Russia.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

From what I heard, despite Lenin's fondness for Trotsky, he viewed him ultimately as a rival. Lenin tended to get outvoted by his own Politburo and Central Committee at times, and Trotsky was no small part of it. He (Lenin) kept elevating Stalin as a pawn, not thinking much of the man's intellect. At one point, while looking into a Commissar for Nationalities, he is said to have remarked, "We don't need anyone that smart. Let's appoint Stalin." By the time that he realized that Stalin was dangerous, having used the General Secretary post to concentrate much power, and by the time that he decided that he definitely wanted Trotsky as his successor, it was far too late.

By the time that Stalin began his "Socialism In One Country" vs. "Endless Revolution" debate with Trotsky, it was nothing more than a pretext for what had already started. He had Zinoviev and others on his side, he had Trotsky outmaneuvered, and it was just a matter of time before Stalin completed his power grab.

Back in those days, most communist leaders viewed each other as rivals. Many people switched communist tendencies periodically, too. That is why I avoid personalities and focus on theory and praxis (practice).

[Lativs]

Says the guy who supports a dictatorship as the “American way”. You have no room to criticize anyone for foolishness.

A dictatorship the is presently glorifying Stalin no less.

if the dictatorship that supports Stalinism is Russia, then they did not guess. Propaganda, you can review the TV channels yourself and make sure, is conducted in the liberal-patriotic wing with a clear bias towards turbo-patriotism from the category "Russia is the birthplace of elephants and all the rest of the countries envy us." Elevate the figures of kings, and princes, and that's it. From their point of view, the USSR was a "bomb for Russia", Stalin was the culprit of mass repression, who threw meat at the people."against the whole Soviet or for the caricature of the whole Soviet, there was a whole information and propaganda program in the noughties for the release of film products."The 90s for Putin is the time, as I quote our pop musician Elizaveta Andreevna Girdymova, "In the 90s people were killed, and everyone ran completely naked, there was no electricity anywhere, only fights for CDs and Coca-Cola."This is all a caricature of the "dashing 90s". Yes, yes, it was still fucked up, but his Russian propaganda also made him unrecognizable. When Putin sent a video message before the invasion of Ukraine, he joked: "we will help you to decommunize." Very Stalinist. But the love for Stalin (you miss the moment that the people love Stirlitz and Brezhnev more) this is a kind of spontaneous reaction to reality that has been going on since 2014. To make it clear, in 2014 it happened, past the provocative capture of the FSB by Strelkov-Girkin with 200 lame poor fighters of Slavyansk (where they staged lawless reprisals that Slavyansk has not forgotten to this day), there was another story that something was not shown on TV in Ukraine, they beat Strelkov. The popular uprising in Donetsk was not shown, which was reminiscent of the events in Alma-Ata from January 2-11, with a slight difference. The uprising was intercepted and led in the case of Donetsk by people from the Party of Regions (the local branch of the pro-Putin United Russia) and essentially led the uprising. There were spontaneous acts of nationalization of property, which was cut down (the funniest thing) then by Russian troops, who took direct control of the Donbass militia, having cleaned up rebellious commanders like Motorola, Givi, Mozgovoy, killed Zakharchenko and planted their scammers, and the Donbass militia was transformed into a people's militia that dispersed strikes and returned enterprises to the oligarchs. Many trade unionists who went to Donbass disappeared without a trace. This uprising was perceived as an uprising against the modern globalist civilization, and Putin was compared to Stalin by the people at that time, because he challenged the world evil and won in the very lair. By the way, by 2016-2018, such sentiments began to subside, and in 2022, the expected patriotic rise did not happen, on the contrary, many patriots were waiting for revenge for 2014 and began to dislike Putin for behaving like an outright traitor in the war, that he does not supply the army, throws recruits into bayonets without preparation, surrenders without a fight large territories. In Russia, there is now a nightmare of an uprising of turbo-patriots under the flags of Tsar Nicholas II and Stalin at the same time. By the way, the figure of Stalin itself has nothing to do with Stalinism, it's just an image, and a fictional collective image of a just ruler. And Stalinism is a clear system of ideological beliefs built on the principles of MELS (Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin). As I have already said, the figure of Stirlitz is in the first place (is Marxism-Stirlicism being propagandized in Russia now?) and Brezhnev (it's simple, he is associated in the eyes of the people with stability and confidence in the future. Because with him, you can plan everything until retirement and everything will turn out without hesitation. Until now, people of the generation of the 60s are used to planning everything in advance before starting work, as children of chaos from the 80-00s of birth rely more on chance than life plans.). Does Brezhnevism also seem to be the forerunner of the dictatorship?
And yes, in Russia it is not fascism but ordinary liberalism, only wilder than Pinochet's. And I don't think that Putin reads Ilyin, Putin is still a redneck of their St. Petersburg gateway, Kudrin and Chubais have read a lot, including White-Emigrant literature and representatives like Ilyin. And Kudrin and Chubais are condole liberals, more condole simply cannot be found in Russia. So reading Ilyin speaks only about the fact of reading Ilyin, and Putin's reading of Ilyin speaks about his cheap pseudo-intellectualism