What was the saddest/ most rage inducing moment in the history of socialism?

Either the Spartacists being crushed or May 68 not becoming what it had the potential to be.

January 20th, 2017

Honestly, for me it's very strange, but the moment that after approaching Kantorovich and asking him what they should do with the economy, the soviet government instead ignored his advice. Had they done it the internet in a somewhat modern form would have existed decades earlier.

When the joke doesn't end

National Socialism getting killed by reactionary counter revolutionary capitalist soviets and USA.

youtube.com/watch?v=aBNKkLTYk6g

May 26, 1924, Trotsky's cucking speech to the troika.

Pretty tragic considering America would probably be the best place in the entire world right now for a Socialist Revolution to occur.

It's literal shit.

t. American

Not the most tragic by any means, but the betrayal of the Revolution by the fascist Stalinists in Barcelona has always struck me as an incredible loss to the world.

>What was the saddest/ most rage inducing moment in the history of socialism?

Russian civil war.
Instead of working with the nationalists to win WWI (which won itself a few months later anyway), the socialists HAD to shit things up.
If not for that civil war, a socialist focused, strong and victorious Russia would've appeared, without losing half its european land, thus without forcing the evil (re)conqueror image that the USSR had to.

The SPD putting down the Spartacist Uprising in January 1919.

The fascists winning the Spanish Civil War.

The Chilean Coup of 1973

>Trotsky just sitting back, taking his time, sipping his tea, waiting for everyone to rally around him.

The fact that over and over people delude themselves into thinking it will work.

"Eh, sorry for the millions of dissident deaths, the rationed food, the centralized all-controlling government, the never ending propaganda and such, but this time, THIS TIME, it will totally work!"

Tankies

>"Eh, sorry for the millions of dissident deaths, the rationed food, the centralized all-controlling government, the never ending propaganda and such, but this time, THIS TIME, it will totally work!"

I don't remember saying sorry

t. self hating marxist

>1818
>Germany

Well the thing is everyone DID support Trotsky in the party elite. It's just that they all got slowly replaced by Stalin. All those well off, educated bolsheviks got replaced by poor scum just like Stalin who only wanted to live comfy lives.

Marx's birthday

Trotsky was just as authoritarian as Stalin

although I will say he likely would not have fucked up the Red Army with purges in the late 1930s

The introduction of the NEP by Lenin. It was evidence that socialism will never work.

I wonder why the lefty/pol/ spergs haven't gotten the memo yet

The breakdown of the Second International as the majority of constituent parties decided to support their countries in the first world war.

Trotsky represented the worst of red army excess during the civil war.
Stalin dropped barrier squads and suicide charges after 1941, Trotsky used em from the organization of the red army right up the end of the civil war.
The only hope is that the now un-purged officers would have the sense to undermine Trotsky's military authority.

Germany didn't exist in 1818.

>Oy vey my educated classes of urban elites are getting replaced by "poor scum"! This is not how I envisioned the dictatorship of the proletariat!
I'm starting to love Stalin unironically.

t. right winger

>Well the thing is everyone DID support Trotsky in the party elite

Like who?

Stalin was a fascist right winger, so no surprise there.
The only difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin didn't enjoy the cult of personality and tried to stay away from the spotlight, masquerading as first among equals.

>Stalin was a fascist right winger

looool wrong wrong and thrice wrong

>no arguments

Stalin was of the right majority in the Bolshevik party.
Stalin had absolute power over Soviet life.
Stalin invested heavily on militarism and industrialization of Russia.
Stalin was a hardcore Russian nationalist, and harshly punished many minorities like Ukrainians, Kazakhs, and Germans.

And the difference between Trotsky, Lenin, Martov or Kamenev and other bourgie elites is what exactly?
Sure looks like to me the right wingers and the "fascists" give more of a fuck about the working and poor people than the Marxists who think they're above them, while at the same time hypocritically proclaim they want to abolish classes.

>leftie ussr reds
Abolish marriage and inheritance laws, internationalism, remove tradition and culture, as they are driving us apart artificially, make peace at any cost, the lost territory is worth it, the educated marxists will show the way for the peasants, communal and free life, etc.

>rightie ussr reds
Keep tradition, be nationalist, russian supremacist, reclaim lost territory, expand when possible, reactionary policies towards dissidents, planned relocation of people, forced labor if necessary, industrialization at any cost and a cult of growth.

Oh, also gender equality and homosexual rights and so on, Stalin was right wing on almost any issue. He was a fascist to a T.

>leftie ussr reds
>push literal cultural cuckoldry, deracination, racemixing and degeneracy while not helping the worker one bit and circlejerking each other in their salon ivory towers like the detached fucktard intellectuals they were
Lenin has more in common with Hillary Clinton than with the average Russian peasant.

>gender equality
Get the fuck out.

You seem like a right winger yourself, Stalin would've liked you.

I like how you added American pizza even though American pizza BTFO French and Italian pizzas in global pizza competitions in France AND Italy.

>the most pressing issues in imperial Russia were homosexual rights and gender liberation
What a bunch of utter faggots, no wonder Stalin won over them

>Stalin was of the right majority in the Bolshevik party.

Stalin was a Bolshevik in the Bolshevik party. It wasn't for Mensheviks like yourself.

>Stalin had absolute power over Soviet life.

How so?

>Stalin invested heavily on militarism and industrialization of Russia.

And they beat the Nazis because of it so how is that fascist?

>and harshly punished many minorities like Ukrainians, Kazakhs, and Germans.

examples?

It paid off well enough, even with Stalin putting his foot to stop further progress.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II

>examples?

Gee, I don't fucking know, perhaps the MANUFACTURED FAMINE THAT KILLED MILLIONS?!
THE FORCED WINTER MARCHES TO RELOCATE WHOLE NATIONS THAT LED TO MILLION DEAD FROM THE ELEMENTS?

Fuck you, Stalin apologist.

Oh dear, you are some butt-blasted Trot aren't you.

Everything PUE touch turns to shit. The one homosexual I like is Ernst Rohm and he wasn't PUE.

>cult of personality
>religious themes
>a fucking dictator

Fascist as fuck. Literally Hitler 2.0, this time with the Won The War expansion pack installed.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

If you want a fuhrer or a tzar, Stalin is your man. If you are a communist/marxist, he is the antichrist.
Which is what this discussion was about.

I think you are just using the word fascist willy-nilly. Boris Souvarine wrote in 1925:

>"Fascism here, fascism there. Action Francaise – that's fascism. The National Bloc – that's fascism… Every day for the last six months, humanity serves up a new fascist surprise. One day an enormous headline six columns wide trumpets: SENATE FASCIST TO THE CORE. Another time, a publisher refusing to print a communist newspaper is denounced: FASCIST BLOW… There exists today in France neither Bolshevism nor fascism: the Fascism they conjure up for us is not viable, the objective conditions for its existence are not yet realised… One cannot leave the field free to reaction. But it is unnecessary to baptise this reaction as fascism in order to fight it."

>if you're a PUE emaciated faggot he is the antichrist
ftfy

The word fascist being overused in general is not an argument against its use here.
I've listed reasons why he is fascist - cult of personality, populism, strong nationalism, traditionalism, mythos of superiority, cult of growth, heavy militarization, forced movement of people, and so on.

Well then, you've got a unique definition of fascism. That's a million miles away from the ComIntern.

>stalin had a different definition of fascism

No shit, else he would lose his mythos and rhetoric by admitting to be one.

If there is no corporatism it isn't fascism. It's the single biggest component of fascism.

"Eh, sorry for the hundreds of millions to billions of innocent deaths, the lack of child labour laws, the exploitation of workers to the death, the never ending wars, but socialism, SOCIALISM COMMUNISM, it never works!"

>he thinks Otto von Bismarck was a commushit

u tarded lad? clearly i was mirroring the original post to show how capitalism is shite too

Anglos to the gallows

Nonsense. Americans are probably the least class conciouss people in the world and they've been brainwashed to hate any kind of collective.

>billions

the death toll due to capitalism is estimated (ofc much harder to pinpoint) to be over a billion. commies ain't got shit on it.

edit:
sorry, i'm an idiot

Socialism isn't what made the average peasant and worker dissatisfied with the Tsar. It was merely an outlet for their discontent.

Maybe if they would've won the Russo-Japanese war and if 1905 never happened, then it might have been possible.

aaand france ended up happily collaborating with Hitler, so maybe they were fascists to the core after all

>Well the thing is everyone DID support Trotsky in the party elite.
"no". Everyone in the politburo hated Trotsky and Stalin exploited that with panache. Only power base Lenin had was in the Red Army and he wasn't willing to use it to get his way, which easily led to his ouster as war commissar and the replacement of Trotskyites army men by those loyal to Stalin or other soviets.

>Stalin didn't enjoy the cult of personality
ayyy lmao

>french pizza
???

Italian pizza is miles better than American pizza anyway, no matter what eating contest Amerilards setup globally.

>Stalin was of the right majority in the Bolshevik party.
umm what? He sided with the leftists zinoviev and kamaenev to remove trotsky who was further left. then he teamed up with the right to cuck zinoviev and kamenev. Then he went left again and cucked bukharin, rykov and tomsky on the right and proceeded to incorporate elements from the left (and some right) into his own policy.

The rest I agree on with some qualifications.

>Stalin invested heavily on militarism and industrialization of Russia.
not out of any innate sense of militarism but because commies predicted the collapse of capitalism and wanted to have a force ready to help foster international revolution when that day came. Also stalin was notoriously paranoid that the capitalist west was hellbent on crushing socialism in russia, and so a large military would serve as a deterrent and aid in the final showdown against capitalist powers. All this was very unlike the german variation of fascism (nazism) where war for war's sake was glorified or as a means to strengthen the race, expand is resource base and eliminate rival races.

>The fascists winning the Spanish Civil War.
*the Soviet backed communists throwing the Civil War out of autistic butthurt

>rightie ussr reds
>nationalist
>russian supremacist
debateable. this is how events developed but there was not a master plan to shill russian nationalism. socialism in one country may have favored russian supremacy in the ussr (remember it was a union of republics), but the idea was not a nationalist project per se but a recognition that the ussr needed to turn inward and develop itself into an industrial and military power in order to bring about socialism within its own borders and prepare for the international revolution when it came.
>expand when possible
stalin was a pragmatist so this is not surprising. pragmatism is not leftist or rightist.
>reactionary policies towards dissidents
>planned relocation of people, forced labor if necessary,
the "leftists" like trostky were more tolerant in the 1920s but since they didn't win we would never know if their policy would have changed. the realities of rule may have made them carry out these exact same policies
>industrialization at any cost and a cult of growth.
the leftists wanted this too. the question was how would industrialization and growth be implemented.

>leftie ussr reds
>Abolish marriage and inheritance laws,
It may well have been that stalin was a conservative on this issue, but the fact of the matter is is that tightening laws on abortions and divorce were a cynical policy to increase the birthrate, which had already been plummeting for a while. more children=more laborers and soldiers. the preservation of tradition and culture also served the purpose of preventing the further alienation of ethnic groups from the ussr.

>pragmatism is not leftist or rightist.

Pragmatism is reactionary and very right wing, in the sense that the left would propose you do what is right and what is just, not what is most beneficial and you can get away with.

Lenin would like a word with you. By that reasoning, extreme reactionaries have also had to make compromises to their (relative) left and not because it is in line with their conceptions about traditional values and social structure. Conservatives found themselves having to compromise with liberalism constantly in the 19th century as a matter of fact.

Yes, and Hitler allied with subhuman slavs, making alternative myths to justify it (croats are actually germanics, bulgarians are actually turkic, etc).

so you agree that pragmatism is not left or right? all pragmatism is is recognizing reality as it is and using the tools and opportunities at one's disposal to pursue some ideological end or according to someone's capricious views. Of course, there are those that claim to be pragmatic but are in fact not pragmatic at all (to use a controversial example, trump's claims to be a hard-headed businessman are belied by his actions scrapping climate policies that are beneficial to the long term well being of the nation)

Anarkiddies could never have won.

especially after the communists stabbed them in the back

thank god for that

That's a meme spread by butthurt liberals like Orwell

It being created

>he says as the world collapses

>tfw you will never live in revolutionary Barcelona

Orwell was an anticommunist snitch, fuck him

The dissolving of the USSR. The void it left behind caused the spread of post modernism and discredited any genuine socialist movement.

Orwell is being discussed elsewhere on Veeky Forums

When it got invented

"Communism is super gay and I wish I never invented it. I hope faggots don't support it years later"
-Karl Marx

That's because we realized that "means of production" is a very subjective term in the modern age. Which of course means communist are nothing but slavers and thieves who lack the moral strength to carry out their fucked up morality.

Also labor theory of value is false.

>means of production" is a very subjective term

Hardly

> Kills farmer and his family for his "means of if production"

The Bolsheviks fucking over Makhno.

Rosa wanted a more democratic and ethical society. There was no reason to oppose that.

>Fascist as fuck
Wow your retarded.

Hitler was closer to Stalinism than Stalinism was close to the actual fascism found in Italy, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Rumania or Croatia.

...

But you can live in revolutionary Rojava.

The intellectuals and party members Stalin purged were mostly Jewish, he essentially single handily ended the "Jedeo-Bolshevism" meme.

Cats! is great you pleb.

I don't know about rage-inducing but ejecting Bakunin was probably among the stupidest.