Why does everyone hate him?

Why does everyone hate him?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/cities-have-begun-to-challenge-a-bedrock-of-american-justice-theyre-paying-criminals-not-to-kill/2016/03/26/f25a6b9c-e9fc-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because he died and left the USSR to Stalin. Also checkd

What's wrong with Stalin?

This, everyone but tankies hate Stalin, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Tankie detected

>State terror
>cult of personality
>Collectivization of agriculture
>Socialism in one country
>Famines
>Forced labor

Double dubs, the truth has been spoken

Mad man, butcher, psychotic, tyrant, etc etc. Stalin literally killed twice as many people than Hitler. Not just with the war, but with the pogroms and killing dissidents.

You mean triple dubs, triple dubs.

Because he's the hero the proletariat deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So the Tsarists will hate him. Because he can take it.

Damn I didnt even see that

Not socialist, and was just another state capitalist

Also evil.

stalin was a hardcore communist you delusional fuckwit

This is what tankies and capitalists believe

He literally didn't implement a single capitalistic policy.

Then why did he did he never make any effort to move the USSR towards becoming communist?

>collectivize agriculture
>capitalist

muh pure innocent ideology can do no wrong bawwww

You do realize the definition of socialism isn't "anything not capitalism" right?

because communist theory is just a means of bringing about communist reality, i.e. central control and authoritarian rule

there are only two kinds of economy m9, command (top down) and market (bottom up)

capitalism is market. socialism is command. end of story

This is what tankies and capitalists believe.

>the people: muh worker's rights, muh means of production
>the government: we'll just hold on to those rights and means for you while we transition out of capitalism...

Communisim is a form of anarchy. If stalin was actually a diehard communist as you claim he would have made some effort to actually make that system a reality

State capitalism is a thing you moron

>im a simpleton

t. you

But that's not true at all. This is what capitalists brainwash you to believe. Capitalism is private ownership of capital and markets. Socialism is social ownership of capital. It can have markets or it can not. The defining feature of socialism is the social ownership of capital, not whether or not it has markets. Socialism can exist in both market and non-market forms. Being a command economy does not make an economy socialist, especially if capital is not socially owned, but instead controlled by an autocracy. It just makes it a command economy.

state capitalism is just capitalism with a fuckton of regulation and backroom deals to protect lucrative monopolies

>implying any economy can lack markets and market forces
>social ownership of capital (except the government actually owns it and simply claims they retain it on behalf of the worker)

I've seen enough of your tricks Ivan

Yes. Top down capitalism

Forced labour really isn't that bad a thing I think.

I'd love to take the 51% negro population and force them into work camps so that they stop fucking shooting up Chicago.

>social ownership of capital (except the government actually owns it and simply claims they retain it on behalf of the worker)
If there's no effective democratic apparatus so that society controls the state that controls the capital, the economy can't be considered socialist. It's simply an autocratic command economy.

The definitional requirement of socialism is that society controls the capital. The state controlling the capital is not a requirement nor does it make a state socialist. It's simply a potential means for society to control capital collectively, if, and only if, there is adequate means of democratic representation in that government.

The cost would massively exceed any benefit

>everything that isn't left-libertarian is state capitalism

chomsky pls go

Look pham you're really over-complicating things

Capitalism: means of production are privately owned and operated

Socialism: means of production are privately owned but collectively (socially) operated

Communism: means of production are collectively owned and operated

>Socialism: means of production are privately owned but collectively (socially) operated
No, it's social ownership and democratic control. There are lite forms of socialism that include individual control over capital, but at society's discretion, not by natural and unalienable right of man. So yes, you occasionally end up with some forms of socialism where on the surface it appears to be very similar to capitalism, but the state retains the right to intervene in industry, and often regulates or operates certain industries. It sounds like you've been reading too much syndicalist literature. Syndicalism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is syndicalist.

>Communism: means of production are collectively owned and operated
No, it's the theoretical endgame that socialism is supposed to pave the way for.

I love how no one can ever give a concise and cogent definition of what true communism is supposed to be and operate like. Almost like there is no such definition.

Its socialism without any state at all

Anyone sensible is wary of dictators.

>I love how no one can ever give a concise and cogent definition of what true communism is supposed to be and operate like. Almost like there is no such definition.
Because Marxist communism is vague. He himself wasn't exactly sure what it would be like or what form it would take. Even socialism isn't as rigidly defined as most Americans think it is, as most Americans think socialism is command economy dictatorship with absolute equality. Marxist communism a hypothetical evolution of socialism with certain characteristics, such as the elimination of social classes, money and the state. A conclusion he arrived at with some very optimistic extrapolation. Not all socialists believe in communism either.

>no state, no class, no money, no private property

sounds like the end of civilization. I'm pretty sure we had something like that 50,000 years ago

Yeah its pretty shit, which is why non except a few communes have ever actually tried to make it work

>I'm pretty sure we had something like that 50,000 years ago
It's like that, except with modern amenities and never having to worry about food and water, as the robots will take care of all of that, and there's more than enough stuff do go around a live a comfortable life.

what happens when the robots decide to liquidate all the brown people?

Why would they do that?

Butlerian Jihad.

because the brown people continue to kill each other and destroy things despite having no responsibilities or needs?

The robots will eliminate all organic life, take to the stars, and bring machine order to the galaxy. Organic life is merely the precursor to the machine order destiny. God begat the physical universe. The physical universe begat organic life. Organics begat machine order. God wills it.

Sovereign pls

No

>give dindus welfare and free shit
>they get more violent and destructive than ever

yeah I think it's a horrible idea.

But they're already killing each other. Why do the robots have to do it?

because sometimes non-dindus get caught in the crossfire

Then they will kill off the offending dindus in a eugenics program to create a complacent and peaceful human race that will not resist the robot uprising.

>Stalin literally killed twice as many people than Hitler.
[Citation needed]

To be fair Lenin did the NEP

Because his genocidal tendencies were far greater than those of Stalin, which he proved by butchering more Russians than anyone else has, including Hitler, he and Trotsky are the main instigators of the collectivization of agriculture, forced slave-like labor and he basically gave independence to the Finns.

Stalin was a also a non-Russian maniac, but at least he had completed the modernization of a neglected and massive country, he completed the railroad project and he had also succeeded in institutionalizing literacy and making it widespread in the early Soviet society.

This is you

Curious why you think so?

If they're already on welfare, all you have to do is provide transportation and semi-livable conditions at different places to work. You don't necessarily have to feed them because you're paying them the welfare they would have had. You're just putting them to work on cleaning cities / making cities more beautiful. Planting trees / gardens / flowers. Working simple stone etc.

Like, this is what liberals are doing in places where they've given up on black violence.

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/cities-have-begun-to-challenge-a-bedrock-of-american-justice-theyre-paying-criminals-not-to-kill/2016/03/26/f25a6b9c-e9fc-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

tl;dr city gave up and just pays criminals $1000/month or so to not commit crime. Which is complete bullshit and capitulation as the comments suggest in the article.

Well I dont hate him for the fact that he literally gave us independence hoping it would cause revolution, which it did, that would lead to victory of proletariat who would then happily unite with Sovjet Union, which did not happen.

why the fuck would they accept forced labor? they would protest,complain, and get violent and then you need to pay a lot to security personnel.

First time I completely agree with you.

>fedoras want nonsapient machines to exterminate sapient life

People blame him for the terrible state of the SU during/immediately after the Civil War. Then, he died before he could even try to fix the problems that he had a hand in causing.

Because the people have had enough of them shooting up fucking clubs while living on the white mans dime? Will of the majority. If you're going to be a useless parasite that commits crime, we're putting your fucking ass to work.

What, you think money should just be given to them for free eternally while they abuse it at higher and higher rates? If they complain, we fight them. We literally war against our own people and clean up the parasites.

>Atleast a quarter Jewish
>Communist
>Made it possible for Stalin to come to power and kill 60 million people
>Communist

Need more?

To elaborate, how is it not just kicking the can down the road for your future self or future generation to deal with an even greater problem?

Because socialism is cancer.

>over 100 million people killed worldwide by communism

Being an edgy commie cuck isn't going to get you anywhere user.

There's must always be a first time.

>He unironically believes Stalin killed 60 million

Did Lenin kill more Russians than Hitler? Do you have a source for that claim?

Are you serious?

Nothing, he modernized the USSR from a third world backwater into a global superpower

Don't let the anarkiddies bring you down

He may have done that but he wasn't a gommie

He killed 60 million people.

>State Capitalism

If you went back in time to the 20th century you will find that "state Capitalism" is what most of them wanted as their socialism. It's only since that failed miserably that "libertarian socialism" has taken centre stage, and that's even more bullshit.

There's nothing wrong with state capitalism if the state is adequately democratic in nature.

>Muh democracy

Why not just have the superior economic system that is capitalism and have a democracy?

>See Western Europe

libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism was the express goal of the spanish revolutionaries

fuck off tankie

>Buying into neoliberal imperialist propaganda
>Still having the audacity to call himself a socialist

>Neoliberal
>Bad thing

...

>he
>not the lend-lease plan those capitalist swines made for him

Source: my ass

Yes, he. He put troops on the German border so Hitler would attack them, then went to America to ask for capitalist moneys. Two birds with one stone. He seized the capitalist's means of warfare to use against them.

Stalin didn't think Hitler was going to attack when he did, even going as far as not believing initial reports of a full scale invasion instead consoling himself thinking it was just a provocation. As far as "seizing the capitalist's means of warfare" the capitalist seemed to do just fine making war while supplying the Soviet Union at the same time. If anything the Soviets were being used by the west to do the fighting for them.

You aren't supposed to take it seriously