Was he a social conservative?

Was he a social conservative?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, he was Communist.

In today's terms yes.

...

No, he was a foaming-at-the-mouth SJW by 1940s standards when it came to attitudes toward women and non-white people. But Stalin was regressive by our modern standards when it came to homosexuality and Jews.

Well old communists generally hate gays and all. It doesn't mean they're conservative that would be shallow. Social revolution and attempts at making a new human is not conservative.

Explain this then

>During Joseph Stalin's rule, the trend toward strengthening the family continued. In 1936 the government began to award payments to women with large families, banned abortions, and made divorces more difficult to obtain. In 1942 it subjected single persons and childless married persons to additional taxes. In 1944 only registered marriages were recognized to be legal, and divorce became subject to the court's discretion. In the same year, the government began to award medals to women who gave birth to five or more children and took upon itself the support of illegitimate children.[1]

>In 1933 the Soviet government, under Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexuality. On March 7, 1934, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited only male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. There were no criminal statutes regarding lesbianism. During the Soviet regime, Western observers believed that between 800 and 1,000 men were imprisoned each year under Article 121.[25] The precise reason for the new law is still in some dispute.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia

you can make the mirror opposite of that if you cherry pick commieshit degeneracy from the current year, and nazibooism along with fascism from the past century

your pic doesn't deserve even a (you), but here I am pointing it out to you in case you actually are a retarded current year commie

>pick commieshit degeneracy

Like idpol liberal shit? yes I hate that thing too

Like just about 99% of any college socialist, tumblr socialist, antifa, the examples go on and on. Probably more autism exists on the left in terms of sheer numbers, and comparable autism in terms of socio-political views.

>inb4 those aren't real socialists/commies

well a naziboofag can say the same thing about the degenerate nazifags in

communism is just an economic model mostly though. You could be a staunch social conservative type and still be a communist, which is what the soviet union was. They wouldnt stand for trans-fag pride parades or anything like that

Communism / socialism is about the class struggle. Race, gender and nationality drama are just distractions that prevent the achievement of class consciousness.

Don't fall for the political compass meme of dividing economical and political views. Sure Stalin was more conservative than Lenin (since his pipedreams of revolutionazing family turned out to be a catastrophe), but a communist can never be social conservative, since communism denies hiearchy in society and seeks to create a New Man.

>They wouldnt stand for trans-fag pride parades or anything like that
They improved standing of these minorities. Not to the degree capitalism managed to, but they did so.

We all know where this thread is going so I might as well ask. Since family stuctures are being eroded by what /pol/ calls cultural marxism, what do we do about it?

The degeneracy bag is already out of the bag, no body's gonna go kill all the libtards, the only option is to synthesize the elements of family structure that legitimately allow for a strong nuclear family with the elements that the social justice types have brought out.

My problem with the revolutionaries has always been that they put too much focus on overthrowing social constructs instead of making sure that the truly useful values that old structures enabled get preserved in the new system.

Anyone in here familiar with the sort of left wing deconstructionist writers who aren't stuck in resentiment l? Id love to read them.

>Since family stuctures are being eroded by what /pol/ calls cultural marxism, what do we do about it?

Family Therapy, or Couple counseling. Don't even know how you can blame that on Cultural Marxism since Family Structure is interpersonal.

>Changes place names
>Disposes of churches and businesses
No he was Lenin's Georgian thug.

That's the joke for every single image like that

Relax comrade

USSR had plenty of peace and technology, what are you talking about? Certainly far more technology than Britain.

The USSR never met the prosperous standards of the West but was vastly more comfortable than the majority of capitalist countries.

>people can't be socially converative while being economically leftist

Stalin was only socially conservative by modern standards

>since communism denies hiearchy in society
Vague, but ok

>and seeks to create a New Man
Wtf is this meme

>and seeks to create a New Man
>Wtf is this meme

>The New Soviet man or New Soviet person as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

why did people want to leave?

Can you name a Famine that happened in the U.K. at any time between 1922 and 1991?

Bloody everyone seems to be a social conservative these days when all you have to do is to look trough thousands of years of history to find a bunch of arbitrary opinions making you think "yep they're right".

The West is the nicest place in the world thanks to its central position in the global economy. Millions of people are leaving more periphery capitalist countries to live there.

He was a National Bolshevik like Kim Sung Il and Ceascescu.

Low population. Abortion was incredibly unsafe at the time. Unsurprisingly a fairly culturally conservative population held fairly conservative views.

Quite a nasty one, in fact

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

>the USSR never had peace, food, technology, or prosperity

Here we go

>things that the state does is capitalism

>not true capitalism
Kek

There's like only 2 to 3 pictures in the "commie degenerates" example who are real. You couldn't even find enough to fill it, how sad is this?

communism is a fucking religion that thinks if communism is implemented, a perfectly equal eden on earth will exist, with everyone being a renaissance man. They deny ALL hierarchical systems, including family as well. The more you read about it, the more batshit you realize it is.

>Race, gender and nationality drama are just distractions that prevent the achievement of class consciousness.

and yet, that is ALL modern day communist give a shit about.

Those "modern day communist" are just liberals, their don't care about class struggle anymore.

Praise kek

leftypol bends over defending trannies like every other leftist. Aside from radical feminists I guess.

There was a strawpol on leftypol on trannies, more than 60% believed gender dysphoria is a mental illness. I don't agree with the leftypol consensus on all things, but they are not the libtard antifa faggots /pol/ makes them out to be.

>more than 60% believed gender dysphoria is a mental illnes
That only shows that 40% of people there are functionally retarded since gender dysphoria is by definition a mental illness.

>porkies control Nazis even though the porkies are doing everything in their power to censor, intimidate and destroy them
Leftypol is this delusional.

Leftists somehow manage to maintain the belief that they are somewhat a threat to the status quo while ethno-nationalists are just part of it despite the latter being no-platformed literally everywhere or the fact that being outed as a leftist has no effect on the social capital of a person.
How they do this, I don't know.

...

How was Soviet society not technological or peaceful?

The worst you can say is there were periods of famine in parts of the country in the early years

Absolutely not. You've never spoken to a communist.

Daily reminder that lefties cannot meme.

You're delusional if you think employers want to hire outspoken communists

Nobody cares, user. Literally nobody. Being a communist comes at no social cost unless you're living in some 1000 people village in redneckland. They would only care if you actually were to do something. Private opinions? Nobody cares, nobody demands your resignation.

No, a mass murderer

psst..class is an identity too. you're just rejecting one idpol for another.

Nope, class struggle is about reals > feels

An oncologist and shaniqua working at mcdonald belonging to the same economic class.
Joe and Molly's family story which employ one and soros belonging to the same economic class.
Totally reals.

class isn't even observable. it's a spook.

is a stakeholder a capitalist? is a small business owner or a person who is self-employed a capitalist? conversely, is a football player who has a multimillion yearly salary is a proletariat?

If they own Means of Production, then they are capitalists.

is a stakeholder a capitalist? yes
is a small business owner or a person who is self-employed a capitalist? yes, a petty-bourgeois one
is a football player who has a multimillion yearly salary is a proletariat? yeah but he does unproductive labour

Cool story /pol/

>spook

That's what you have to believe if you categorize people based on their relationship to the means of production.

how is class then a meaningful distinction between groups of people? it's clear that the power dynamic of proletariat vs capitalist is not at all clear or relevant to the vast majority of people's lives today. there's so much overlap and so many contradictions within the definitions that make them effectively arbitrary

>it's never in your self-interest to work for someone
Leftypol is unbelievably retarded

>trade unions are capitalists

Anyone who believes leftism is in any way politically incorrect is definitely not right in the head.

Class isn't an identity. One's relationship to capitol is both universal (can be objectively observed anywhere, in any society) and mutable (occasionally subject to change).

A Mexican railway worker is Hispanic in America, Mestizo back home, and potentially Blanco or Hispanio to the neighboring indigenous villagers. But in both Mexico and the USA, he's a proletarian. He can move to China or Germany, but if he continues to work for a wage without owning capitol, he is still proletarian. This can change not from entering a new environment in which these terms do not apply (because class position is universal) but only if he saves up his money and starts a railroad enterprise, becoming bourgeois.

Liberals LARPing communist don't count, class struggle is what define communism not identity bullshit.

As if Hitler was anti-capitalist

What can't you comprehend about that? A cooperative owned by the workers still operates under the capitalist mode of production

HISTORY BOARD EVERYONE

>workers are capitalists

The only reason why your example work is because you're implying that everyone uses the same definition of class you do.
They don't. Nobody uses the marxist meaning. They use stuff like working class, midlle class, upper class and everything in between, which make far more sense.
if we use the same definition of race everywhere, race too isn't an identity, since it would be universal.

>he doesn't know what a trade union is

A small business owner might not be as wealthy as Soros but fulfills the same class obligations and is subject to generally the same pressures. Both of them worry not about the whims of their employer, but the whims of the market. Their property generates revenue off which they survive.

A hypothetical oncologist who owns no capital (which is unlikely, because nearly all highly valued salaried employees own some great quantity of stock) is proletarian because he or she is dependent on the whims of the employer. The hospital can decide one day that they don't need another cancer specialist and sack this oncologist, just as McDonald's can decide they don't need another fry cook.

A small dog is, after all, still a dog.

Right. That user probably thinks every blue hair chick at his university is a communist, and bases his assumptions off of that.

I'm not saying classifying people by their relationship with the means of production can't be done, I'm saying it's completely irrelevant to the lives of everyone. You might as well divide people in those who have an even number of hairs and those who have an odd number of hair. Can be done, yet it's meaningless.

Sometimes yeah, anyone can circulate capital to make money if they have enough of it.
But that doesn't change the relationship that your labour produces wealth for someone else to distribute in exchange for wages.

True commies care about idpol just as much as the average liberal dyke, the difference is they also have centuries old wrong notions of economics. Wow, what an improvement.

Lower class, middle class, upper class are bullshit liberal abstractions used to distort class into a simple manner of income and unite small business owners with proletarians for the common good of the ruling class. Proletarians who believe they're part of the same "middle class" as their employers are less likely to seek any redress for their economic grievances and instead become much more agreeable with fiscal policies that hurt them. The best example is the Reagan-Thatcherite movement toward deregulation, which lowered wages across the board but was accepted by many proletarians who had been convinced that they and their boss were both "little guys" burned by too much government interference.

These liberal class labels become even more ridiculous when you consider that the parameters of middle or upper class are defined entirely by the incomes of surrounding people. This means that a middle class person in New Jersey becomes lower class the minute they drive into Manhattan. It's ludicrous.

>your labour produces wealth for someone else to distribute in exchange for wages
This is how real Socialism works.
Anyways, if you are the guy who does not know what a labor union is and you call yourself a socialist, you should kys.

Your preferred economic systems have caused stagnant wages, gaping inequality, constant marker instability, uncontrollable mass migration, environmental destruction, and the erosion of our democratic institutions.

Liberals who say that our ideas about the economy are wrong must only reflect on their own.

Proletarian and capitalist is a bullshit abstraction used to distort class into a simple manner of relation with the means of production.
These commie class labels become even more ridiculous when you consider that they group together people who have completely different lives in terms of money or wealth.

>me
>liberal

That's the left-communist argument and I agree with it, but a lot of self-declared socialists just want liberal capitalism with every competing firm owned socially by the workers.

I don't give a shit if you voted for Trump, you're a liberal because you adhere to liberal economic assumptions.

>Liberals who say that our ideas about the economy are wrong must only reflect on their own
Saying the earth is spherical is wrong. Saying the earth is flat is wrong. They're not equally wrong.

>me
>voting for trump
also
>you're a liberal because you adhere to liberal economic assumptions
Truly incredible reasoning skills. Wouldn't expect anything less from leftypol

Proletarians in every country have the same relationship to capital. Proles in rich countries are richer than proles in poor countries because global capital isn't distributed evenly.

And?
People with an even amount of hairs have an even amount of hairs everywhere. Something being universal doesn't make it useful.

You support liberalism. You are a liberal.

>True commies
But what does it meant to be a "true commie"?

Was it Leninism? If it is, then is it either Stalinism or Trotskyism?

Or was Lenin wrong? About his position on centralized state and the vanguard leadership? About starting revolution in under-industrialized Russia in the first place? Were Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky right about Lenin's wrong doings in Moscow?

"True commie" is *sniff* a meaninglessh term at this point. Throughout isch history, communism *sniff* has been divided into countless sub-ideologies, depending on the situations of each place where revolution took place.

Not only that, they have alienated themselves through meaninlesch competition over time. My gott, *sniff* did you know that ze post-Stalin soviet union and Mao's china almost went to war with each other? Just because of some petite ideological differences? *sniff*

In thisch era, where liberal capitalism isch dominant, *sniff* "true communism" has become ze zeitgeist ideology.

>You support liberalism.
I don't, in any way conceivable.

Kek

Why is Zeitgeist the most common German word in other languages?

"liberalism", in any context in the world besides that of illiterate burgers, means "private control of the means of production".

you support that, so you are a liberal.
(most of the people you call liberal are liberals too, desu, but /leftypol/ definitely aren't.)

>"liberalism", in any context in the world besides that of illiterate burgers, means "private control of the means of production"
No. That's capitalism, liberalism and capitalism aren't synonymous. Liberalism includes capitalism but it's not the same thing as capitalism.
It's not difficult to understand.

Hmm.. so I could say Stalinism isn't communism, because Stalin didn't support the worker's control of the means of production, right?

Of course he did support it. The workers, through the state, own the means of production.

>The workers, through the state, own the means of production.
Can't make this shit up...

Comrade, you sound...reactionary.
Are you sure you're not suffering from sluggish schizophrenia?

You could make that argument, and many communists do, but I think Stalin's actions suggest that he DID want communism... but not until Soviet global hegemony had been secured.

No they didn't. Even still, that's not socialism. As per Marx, socialism involves the abolition of private property AND commodity production. The Soviets did little more than turn private property into state property.