When you see a vision of Stalin leading the USSR

>when you see a vision of Stalin leading the USSR

[COLAPSE]

Did Stalin actually do anything that Lenin wouldn't have approved of?

uncle josi was an imperialist shit

I'm pretty sure Lenin wasn't a tanky

Stalin has transformed an outdated rural country into a space-faring nuclear superpower, while all he did is butcher millions of ethnic Russians, give Finland independence and weaken the cultural structure of the former Russian Empire.

Lenin was a hack.

Sure.
Lenin wouldn't have killed every other competent high officials of the party, would not have put the communist parties at odds with the socialist parties in europe, and would have supported republican spain.
He would probably have been a bit different in every other policy too.

You know in retrospect you're probably right.

>would not have put the communist parties at odds with the socialist parties in europe
He did that while he was alive though

Maybe I'm wrong.
I think that Lenin would have thought that making ennemies before you have the power to crush them is a bad idea.

>while all he did is butcher millions of ethnic Russians, give Finland independence and weaken the cultural structure of the former Russian Empire.

Uncle Lenin did literally nothing wrong, Russia needs another leader like him

t. Finn

What i always get confused by is why people think the whole transformation into an economic powerhouse was something amazing. If Tsar russia hadnt gotten Nicholas II as a Tsar, russia could have gone to space just fine without communism too. Hell even with Nicholas II it could have happened since russia was already slowly going toward a republic even if Nicholas II was trying his best to fuck it up.

In what way?

>Vladimir "Lets murder the bourgeoisie" Lenin wan't a tankie

Tanki-ism is Leninism

The only reason you don't consider him a tankie is because he died before anti-communism in America was rife enough to make it worth slandering him.

ROFL @ this great man bullshit

If that's the criteria Marx and Engels were tankies too

Mass murdering political opponents and quashing dissent is a big one.

For Lenin, purging meant forcing a shitty bureaucrat into early retirement. For Stalin, purging meant cold blooded murder of people who could be subversive or even knew a subversive person.

Lenin's governmental policy was "centralized democracy" -- let an elected politburo come to a consensus on policy.

When Stalin came to power several years after Lenin's death, he abolished this principle in favor of more dictatorial principle. He still had a council of advisers, but they were in no position to offer real dissent.

He didn't let local republics (Ukraine, Kazakhstan) have any real autonomy and believed all Soviet republics and satellites must practice the exact same type of socialism.

Lenin would've failed harder than Stalin tbqh. I know this b/c real communists like Mao were far worse than an opportunist like Stalin.

it's proletarian revolution not peasant revolution, Mao wasn't a communist neither was Pol Pot

>Mao wasn't a communist
>neither was Pol Pot

>proletarian
>peasant

Do you even know what you're fucking saying, this is incredible double standard you retard.

He didn't actually murder the bourgeoisie, though. The transition was pretty bloodless other than some riots and the execution of the royal family.

Things got nasty a year later, when reactionary elements within the former Russian Empire revolted in open civil war.

I'm sorry, not double standard, doublethink.

You're doublethinking alot, user. Must be the leftist dogma your professors are shoving down your throat.

red.it: the post

I'm confused, are you shitposting or are you some kind of hardcore leftcom?

Please explain yourself.

Mao was less of a real communist than Stalin, given all his mystical Asian wutang wisdom revisionist bullshit.

Just shitposting, looks like it was fairly successful too

Mao's no revisionist, at least not compared to Deng

Obviously not, but MLM and Third Worldism directly contradict and undermine Marx.

Damn it, got baited again.

Umm, user, Orwell was a leftist...

>For Lenin, purging meant forcing a shitty bureaucrat into early retirement.

I understand it was during the Civil War, but do you not into Cheka?

>b-but animal farm!!

He never slaughtered his government like Stalin did. The cheka were nowhere near as bad as the NKVD.

Animal Farm and 1984 were both written to express Orwell's utter disappoint with the results of the socialist revolution in Russia. Orwell was a socialist but he was very firmly a democratic socialist who had no love for Soviet-style authoritarian socialism.

>Orwell was a leftist
>was
>a
>leftist
Oh, how wrong you are!

Yes, he WAS a leftist. But his views became more conservative with time. Also he only said he wanted a "socal democracy" because workers were being treated badly not because of actual leftism itself.

In fact, if we were to put Orwell on a political scale, he would actually shift more to the center than either side.

>He didn't actually murder the bourgeoisie, though

He was always a leftist, he just became disillusioned with revolutionary dictatorship for obvious reasons

>Also he only said he wanted a "socal democracy" because workers were being treated badly

A desire to protect workers from exploitation is a normal component of democratic socialism.

>The RSFSR ain't free

>When you see a vision of your glorious empire becoming a commie shithole

>Also he only said he wanted a "socal democracy" because workers were being treated badly not because of actual leftism itself.
He actually fought with the POUM, who were trotskyists. I don't think Trotsky represents democracy.

That shitstain did it all to himself
Fuck Nikolai II, he was one of the stupidest, weakest and shit leader ever anywhere

t. Finn

>Tzarist Russia
>Glorious empire

Pick one

A space-faring, nuclear superpower of a commie shithole. Memes aside, he should've abdicated in favor of Obolensky.

It was, at least all up until the Russo-Japanese war.

>he was always a leftist
He may have been a leftist for his time but we have shifted dichotomies to fit a more leftist scale. George Orwell, is now a centrist in our eyes.

Also social democracies are considered centrist as well.

>A desire to protect workers from exploitation is a normal component of democratic socialism.

This can also be a component of compassion as well, not necessarily democratic socialism. Caring for the conditions of workers can be a very apolitical belief in itself, because of that.

>Trotsky
>representing democracy
Isn't it highly ironic that Orwell would fight for such a group. But he did so b/c he cared about other people, this doesn't make him a leftist in any sense of the word.

But ya, I'm standing by my decision that Orwell was indeed a centrist more than a leftist. As you can see here social democracy lies inside the centrism parameters, and with our shifting to a more leftist spectrum he would be further in the center due to a pull to the right as its a Third Way type of government.

> while all he did
He was literally the one who created the system where autist like Joseph could even hope to be a man of importance. To won battle royal over who would rule Russia is no joke of achievement. All instruments that Stalin used was Lenin creation.

His own fault for being such a weak monarch.

Fascism should be centrist statism.

>facism
>Natsoc
>Individual ownership
>Not in the center

George Orwell was a socialist who wanted the abolition of capitalism. You can't spin that as centrism.

>anarcho-communist symbol
>far right

user, I...

>assumes all anarchism is anarchosyndicalist
wew check your anarchosyndicalistnormative privilege

christ, what kind of cold war propaganda spawned this abortion of a post

What's with that greentext? I literally said I don't think Trosky represents democracy.
Anyway, what's referred today as social democracy is not what was meant by when the term was created. Back then, social democracy was the same as democratic socialism aka worker ownership of the means of production achieved by democratic means. Later it came to be associated with capitalism with with certain regulations in the context of a democratic state.
Orwell said he would have liked to join the anarchists. Does that sound more cetrist than leftist to you? Check out what he said about the revolution in Catalonia. The guy evn wrote a book called Homage to Catalonia.

>What i always get confused by is why people think the whole transformation into an economic powerhouse was something amazing.
Because, by the history of the world, you can also spot nations that failed to do so.
Or was too busy to fuck each others in civil war to do so.
Or didn't try.

> russia could have gone to space just fine without communism too.
Nope.
USA wasn't even that willing to go into Space before Sputnik scared them into literally expanding NASA into a super space agency.

Stalin = Pepe
Lenin = Wojak

>implying anarcho-capitalism is anarchism

That might be the most retarded political spectrum I have ever seen.

I guess they put him into Mausoleum so he couldn't spin in his own grave. He would've spun fast enough to create a black hole.

The most retarded post i've seen in at least a week. Congrats.

They were

When kropotkin died a giant anarchist funeral was held with anti bolshevik flags.
Would that have been possible with stalin?
Don't get me wrong, both were shit, but they're certainly not the same.

It's true that Orwell wasn't really a leftist.

He can pretend but so can all the other anarchists and closet liberals.

He made up lies about the Soviet Union and pretty much spent his entire life brimming with anti-communist fervour. He's the reason we have the term left wing of capital.

>He made up lies about the Soviet Union
What lies? He never lied about anything in the Soviet Empire.

>He made up lies about the Soviet Union and pretty much spent his entire life brimming with anti-communist fervour.

When did he lie about the Soviet Union?

I'm about to read Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution. Did anyone here read it?