Is he our guy?

Mao might have been an impressive revolutionary, but he was a retarded dictator both in maintaining his dictatorship, and the stuff he actually managed to do while being a dictator. Also his ideology is kind of shit.

You use of ad hominem and expletives have certainly convinced me your opinion is worthy of consideration!

Industrializing a largely agrarian country, maintaining 5% growth rates, reforming most of China's government institutions and proving decent healthcare and medical treatments whilst lifting many out of poverty is pretty impressive in my opinion.

I agree he did some stupid shit. But ignoring his accomplishments only make you look silly.

Lots of that happened when Mao wasn't in control

That would be Tito and for the record, Stalin transformed a heavily outdated rural "Empire" into a nuclear space-faring superpower.

No it really didn't.

Mao literally had less then 1,000 men left after the Long March and he still came back to whoop Chiang. That's impressive. Tito never had to manage 1 billion people either.

That's not Mussolini

Fratello mio Benito!

ar' guy

Although, 1 billion Chinese are easier to manage than 24 million semi-illiterate and inherently savage South Slavs.

I know it's a what if, but surely Russia would've developed without gulags/purges

And you think the bulk of the Chinese weren't illiterate and living in even worse conditions than Slavs?

Don't make me laugh. Tito had it easy mode compared to China. China is also much more ethnically diverse than the Balkans.

You don't seem to understand, it's not about poverty, it's about mentality.South Slavs are highly fractious, especially according to East Asian standards.

>t. my /pol/ memes

Interesting, indeed.

Tito successfully repelled the Nazis with a partisan army

Castro overthrow the entire government of Cuba with 82 nen

Stalin was a moron who managed to lose Russo-Polish war in 1920, thus ultimately stopping the Revolution. And then he turned USSR from a fairly liberal union to authoritarian empire.

Lenin never asked for this, his party comrades wanted to create an "idol" for the people to worship.

Stalin oversaw maybe the quickest process of industrialization ever performed. I don't think he was particularly brilliant, rather some decent policy in combination with extreme totalitarianism. Impressive but it doesn't imply that Stalin is particularly brilliant

yes

Tito is fucking based but Stalin, as a revolutionary, wasn't too impressive. His role was minimal compared to Lenin and Trotsky.

However, Stalin's civil war actions were incredible, albeit harsh.

Not really a /pol/ meme, you wouldn't believe to what an extent historical factoids influence people in the Balkans. In the case of Balkans I really do think that ideology creates the base. I think it's because we never really had a continuous historiographical tradition.

I have nothing to add to the discussion I just like this picture of Lenin

...

He had is smug look even in young age. What not to love about him?

I like Trotsky better
>Life is not an easy matter... You cannot live through it without falling into frustration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raises you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness.
Based af

Quotes are quotes, but in the end Trotsky wasn't able to resist Stalin. And that's a damn shame.

...

>promises land, peace, bread
>doesn't deliver on any of that

He was a real jerk.

Yeah, his aloofness after Lenin's death and his unwillingness to split the party into factions somewhat allowed Stalin to consolidate power. I really think the USSR would have been better off under Trotsky, but who knows.

>Takes all the bread and kills five million peasants under 'war communism'
Not quite the people's hero after all.

But he delivered.

>civil war started by the butthurt tsarist generals
What Lenin has to do with this?

Why did you post a picture of lenin and not Mussolini?

Lenin started the revolution and led the insurrection in Petrograd. Any further events were directly a result of this, including the civil war and including the induced famine.

So you be saying the people of Russia would be better off with a shitty Tzar, who was controlledby by a bunch of industrial giants, who exploited the people like there is no tomorrow? Oh, and famines each 1-2 years. What a paradise.

>a shitty Tzar, who was controlledby by a bunch of industrial giants

But I thought Russia under the Tsar wasn't industrialized? You have to find a narrative on pre-revolutionary Russia and stick to it, bud.

No, not necessarily, though under the new agrarian policies Nicholas ii was introducing it was slowly climbing out of the shit heap, WW1 fucked things up majorly in that regard.
Your initial point was that Lenin had nothing to do with the famine during the civil war, which is patently ridiculous.

It's not like Russia was completely agrarian, there were some factories in Western Russia, mostly owned by foreigners. Those foreigners were interested in getting their shit back after revolution hit, so they shipped a lot of weapons and supplies to the cucked White generals.

You realize that if not for the Civil war, there would be no famine in the first place? Was it Lenin's fault that Tzarist remnants, desperately craving for power, started the shitstorm at the East?

Lenin rebelled against Kerensky's Duma government, not the Tzar.

Yeah, sorry, my fault. But it's not like Kerensky was any better.

For God's sake, circular reasoning already?
Lenin started and led the revolution. Tsarists responded in the usual manner, forcefully trying to take power from the Bolsheviks. Therefore, Lenin is, at the very least, equally responsible for the civil war.

>Lenin never asked for this
>tfw you realize Lenin has the same goatee as Adam Jensen

The similarity is uncanny

>China is also much more ethnically diverse than the Balkans.
What? I thought China was 98% Han Chinese? Or is that just in modern times?

As said, Lenin led the revolution against Provisional Government, not the Tzar. Remnant generals started to cause shit only after they received a huge funding from England and France. They already lost at this point, and saying that Lenin is responsible for the actions of Vrangel, Kolchak and Kornilov is like saying that the Union was responsible for the Lost Cause rebellion.

he knows the secret technique, so yes

ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data.htm

1950: 448
1959 (10 years after war with kuomintang ended): 686
1976: 853

10^[(log(853/686))/17]=1.3% growth

10^[(log(853/448))/26]=2.5% growth including post-war recovery

China was well placed for industry, it was in a temperate grain producing area with high levels of urbanization before the industrial revolution, most of the population was near the coast with easy access to the global market. Heavy investment in the military including technical achievements like nuclear weapons, state of the art fighter jets and a space program proved China was more than capable of fast industrialization and for whatever reason chose not to. Mao's China is basically a case study on how authoritarianism, corruption and political instablity can adversely affect economic growth.

China can be contrasted with India which, though democratic, also went through decades of dismal growth and now lags behind after China's reforms. Communism is an incomplete theory. Democracy is just a system with advantages and disadvantages along side others like republicanism. It is overwhelmingly clear that capitalism and true American values (really universal values, they are just most prominent in America) are key to pretty much everything worthwhile in the world.

Dictators aim to stay in power. Politicians are concerned with appearances. The bourgeois however only want to increase their personal wealth without getting into trouble, they are harmless compared to dictators and far more realistic compared to politicians. Because they are often the only person in the world with this goal besides family and close friends it is ridiculous to view them as a threat, rather we should respect each others' individual rights.

Close but no cigar

>who managed to lose Russo-Polish war in 1920, thus ultimately stopping the Revolution
Are you retarded, what did Stalin have to do with that campaign?
Kamenev was glavkom (commander in chief) at the time giving all the orders and generals responsible for operation were Egorov, Budeni and Tukhachevsky.
Tukhachevsky thinking that the orders were shit (which they arguably were) and that he can blitz with the best comes up with fast radical plan and gets slaughtered while Budeni is nowhere around to help him (either because previous battles slowed him down or because he didn't like Tukhachevski as some people claimed). This pretty much fucked the rest of the war up.

Polish fuck up makes Lenin think that Kamenev is actually incompetent and not very smart at all, it also discredited Tukhachevsky and made his later plans for fast wild tank armies into a pipe dream.

Stalin's biggest contribution to that war was sitting in Egorov's camp and being inefficient together with Egorov. He was still pretty "literally who" at the time politically. And being involved into the actual relevant war theater that went to shit probably saved him some political capital.

Nations are fabricated bourgeois identities that undermine authentic culture and tradition.

Classcucks

Separated nations and languages are why we have separate cultures and traditions you colossal faggot.

Han Chinese is a cultural and ethnic identity, but there's enormous variation within culture and dialect of Han subgroups. Two random Chinese individuals probably cannot understand each other unless they speak a common second language like Mandarin or standard Cantonese.

Not that guy, but it would be the other way around, ideally. Nations should stem from cultures, traditions, and languages, not the other way around.

He's pol's guy

Back to your containment board turboautist neckbeard

No you fucking retard

Nobody in Piedmont ate spaghetti until the new Italian government decided some random traditions from Sicily and Calabria would now become "Italian traditions", shared by all citizens of a state that did not exist a decade prior.

Before the enlightenment, states had essentially no national identity. This is a modern innovation, intimately tied to the ascent of liberal ideology.

Front left in the black is kinda qt 2bh.

Only if Rosa is 'our girl'.

No, he was just [[[someone's]]] puppet planted to destroy Russia

>destroy Russia
>ended up as one of the two largest superpowers in the last half of the 20th century.

You know, the "Jews are behind it all" meme really falls apart when the Jews are fighting amongst themselves.

>Kaiser sends Lenin to Russia to incite revolution and withdraw them from war

>THE FUCKING JEWS MUST HAVE DONE THIS

Holy shit you're retarded kid, get the fuck back to NEET daycare

Culture, tradition and language all predate the concept of a nation.
The nation came about in the modern period, and isn't even over a thousand years old.

I'm from the Balkans and I dare say that I'm more acquainted with my kind than you are.

>common second language like Mandarin or standard Cantonese.

>cantonese
>relevant

>tfw the Mezzogiorno won the culture wars

Feels good man

No, Mussolini is our guy

There are over 56 ethnicities in China. 91% of China is Han, yes, but you have to keep in mind that that still leaves 105 million (a huge amount of people) who aren't Han, and still hold onto their local customs.

In fact a huge problem for China today is trying to keep these minorities happy and in line with Han rule. For example, Beijing is incredibly worried about Uyghur Muslims and they've recently tried to force their women to stop wearing veils which has caused quite a lot of resistance.

Fucking wiggers

What is the point of this post? It backs up what I say. India and China is a good comparison as to why the CCP worked so well for China and why democracy didn't work for India.

The KMT were useless and impotent.

You do realize it's possible to have a democratic or republican socialism? In fact most non-tankies would say it's vital.

I disagree that it is less than a Millenia old. Were the Achaeans not a civilisation? Nor the Mykene? Nor the Romans, the Byzantines, the Egyptians, the proto-Syrians or the Judeans who had such a strong sense of national identity and pride?

Closest thing to a nation would maybe be some Jewish kingdoms, but I'm no expert on them. A nation is a political entity unified by a particular ethnic group's culture and interests. Effectively, it's about a 'national identity' and creating a state based around unfying all those with this national identity and a common language. Most kingdoms in the past were more concerned with unifying family lands, expanding for the sake of expanding or expanding to spread an idealogy. The concept of bring all of 'your people' under a single state didn't really crop up much before the early-modern nation states started popping up.

I think you're conflating "nation" and "civilisation" when they didn't have anything to do with each other until the 19th Century.

Nation is a highly politicised term and you should be careful applying it to earlier periods.

No it's not. Socialism requires the destruction of human rights and identity.

You would be wise to listen to your boy Stalin when he argues 'He who votes decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.'

>Socialism requires [inserts political opinion]

We're trying to have a good conversation here, champion.

Ok, my apologies then. Seems I'm going to have to go back to school to learn some basic definitions. I thought a nation was pretty much synonymous with civilisation, country etc.

It's not like everyone has had this conversation a billion times because the socialists retardedly keep coming back after they get BTFO EVERY SINGLE TIME.

No problem, it doesn't help that the word nation is actually quite old, I think I've seen it used in medieval texts.

>deny something
>HAHAHA BTFO FAGGOT END OF DISCUSSION

m8, you're the one that denies that socialism is incompatible with basic human rights and decency.

No

NO HE IS NOT

I WANT /leftypol/ TO LEAVE

WHEN WE SAY /pol/ ISN'T WELCOMED HERE WE MEAN ANY KIND OF /pol/

FUCKING COMMIES GET OFF MY BOARD GO BACK TO CRIPPLECHAN REEEEEEEEEEE

Of course she is!

But communists turned Russia into the second most powerful civilization of all time.

Nation states didn't exist until the 17th century you mongoloid

>nations can't exist without nation states
Are you literally retarded?

Just a reminder, one part of the Russian Empire, Finland, managed to escape Bolshevism.

It became the best country in the world.

I can't wait until the fascist revolution happens and we can get rid of people like you.

...