Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Pandeeria]

Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

You're just inventing definitions right now. Revolution is the act of toppling a societal order and imposing a new one.

Engels was inventing definitions.

[Zudril]

Is a fascist revolution freedom?

Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.

[Pandeeria]

Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.

Indeed. If a proper Socialist revolt occurs and succeeds in that society, then the Revolution is complete in that chunk of society.

[Bojikami]

We aren't discussing Stalin here. We are discussing the concept of revolution as a whole now.

No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

[United Marxist Nations]

You're just inventing definitions right now. Revolution is the act of toppling a societal order and imposing a new one.

Engels was inventing definitions.

His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?

[Zudril]

Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.

Indeed. If a proper Socialist revolt occurs and succeeds in that society, then the Revolution is complete in that chunk of society.

Then what does it matter of revolution is freedom then? It gives birth to authoritarianism. What's the point if it's "free" or not.

[Bakery Hill]

No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake

[Pandeeria]

No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.

Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

[Bojikami]

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake

Nice argument fam

[Pandeeria]

Engels was inventing definitions.

His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?

Engels definitions were mediocre shit.

[United Marxist Nations]

His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?

Engels definitions were mediocre shit.

Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?

[Bojikami]

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.

Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

That's where you're wrong, bucko. During the civil war and through much of the early half of the 20th century the Soviet Union actively practised socialism through it's policies. However, the experiences of World War 2 and the Cold War took it off of this path.

[Greater Istanistan]

No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.

[Pandeeria]

Engels definitions were mediocre shit.

Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?

A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.

[Bakery Hill]

"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake

Nice argument fam

It wasn't an argument. Saying the Purges got "carried away" is an understatement to the point of absurdity. This wasn't a house party that broke a few windows. This was at least 600,000 people murdered, almost all of them on blatantly false pretences.

[Pandeeria]

No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.

That's where you're wrong, bucko. During the civil war and through much of the early half of the 20th century the Soviet Union actively practised socialism through it's policies. However, the experiences of World War 2 and the Cold War took it off of this path.

No, the Vangaurd Party owned the means of the production, not the working class.

[Mattopilos]

Not always. Anarchy doesn't. Marxist-Leninist communism does, but not anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism, or anarcho-syndicalism. Or any anarchic systems, really (except AnCap, but we shall not talk of them).

Anarchist revolution in a nutshell
>make a state
>claim it isn't a state
Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc

[Minzerland II]

Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?

A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.

Lolwut.

[United Marxist Nations]

Anarchist revolution in a nutshell
>make a state
>claim it isn't a state
Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc

How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.

[Pandeeria]

A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.

Lolwut.

Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.

[Bojikami]

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.

I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.

[Mattopilos]

Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc

How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.

Armies don't make a state. Purges don't make a state. A chain of command does not make a state. Repression does not make a state.

[Pandeeria]

I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.

I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.

>Calls Stalin a genuine Socialist

My fucking sides mate, my fucking sides. Is this suppose to be a prank?

[United Marxist Nations]

How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.

Armies don't make a state. Purges don't make a state. A chain of command does not make a state. Repression does not make a state.

So, what does make a state then?

[United Marxist Nations]

I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.

>Calls Stalin a genuine Socialist

My fucking sides mate, my fucking sides. Is this suppose to be a prank?

Pretty much all the evidence shows that Stalin believed in the goal of socialism until his dying day.