gyrofry posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:Goethestein posted:deadken posted:if trotsky had succeeded lenin all the Super Sensitive Socialist Teens would be calling themselves stalinists. stalin enacted most of trotsky's policies, trotskyism is pure cult of personality, profoundly anti-materialist and totally gross
stalin killed 20 million people.
a good start
I suppose you'd say the same if you or your family had been among the victims, eh?
dead wreckers tell no tales
So, you'd have been happy to have been a victim, then?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:jools posted:if you're going to talk about lenin and his policy to workers and peasants asking what narodnaya vlast' means and its significance is extremely important....
Where did I ask what it meant?
You really do like to make stuff up, don't you?
Rosa, just an FYI for you, Jools (Joel) is one of tHE rHizzonE's greatest scholars. There's no shame in challenging him and failing. Many have done so before, and many to come will do so as well.
ilmdge posted:What I hope to someday witness -- or, perhaps, oversee? -- would be called the "Green Revolution," a revolution of brotherly love in which the streets would be awash with the blood of those who oppose us. I don't know if it would be considered top-down or bottom-up, but we'd abandon the cities and the ghosts that remain there, leaving them great empty husks, and we'd embark to the countryside, where we'd farm land adjacent to forests, and at the end of the day the farmers would convene at small village pubs, joined by the blacksmith and the cobbler, and sing songs of comradery and joy. Capitalism would be banned.
The world can't survive in a capitalist world. An agrarian nation of peasants can be self-sufficient - won't need the capitalist world!
I agree, that is why we need socialism. And an agrarian society would be invaded. Have you not seen what happend in the 19th century?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:Goethestein posted:deadken posted:if trotsky had succeeded lenin all the Super Sensitive Socialist Teens would be calling themselves stalinists. stalin enacted most of trotsky's policies, trotskyism is pure cult of personality, profoundly anti-materialist and totally gross
stalin killed 20 million people.
a good start
I suppose you'd say the same if you or your family had been among the victims, eh?
dead wreckers tell no tales
So, you'd have been happy to have been a victim, then?
i regret that i have but one imaginary corpse to surrender to the warm paternal embrace of stalin
ggw posted:rosa... how long have you been a closet libertarian?
About as long as you have been a fifty foot high dinosaur.
gyrofry posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:Goethestein posted:deadken posted:if trotsky had succeeded lenin all the Super Sensitive Socialist Teens would be calling themselves stalinists. stalin enacted most of trotsky's policies, trotskyism is pure cult of personality, profoundly anti-materialist and totally gross
stalin killed 20 million people.
a good start
I suppose you'd say the same if you or your family had been among the victims, eh?
dead wreckers tell no tales
So, you'd have been happy to have been a victim, then?
i regret that i have but one imaginary corpse to surrender to the warm paternal embrace of stalin
No great loss there, then.
ilmdge posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:jools posted:if you're going to talk about lenin and his policy to workers and peasants asking what narodnaya vlast' means and its significance is extremely important....
Where did I ask what it meant?
You really do like to make stuff up, don't you?Rosa, just an FYI for you, Jools (Joel) is one of tHE rHizzonE's greatest scholars. There's no shame in challenging him and failing. Many have done so before, and many to come will do so as well.
Except, I am not 'failing'.
ggw posted:what if the will of the workers is that they want capitalistic society and hate socialism because they wanna get weird with it and drive this thing into the ground?
That's about as likely as you posting a sensible comment.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Stailn was just a figurehead of new and brutal stae capitalist ruling class, so of course he acted like other tyrants have always done.
Except, in the USSR things were much worse; they had to make up in 20 years what it had taken the 'advanced economies' centuries to achieve. So, the oppression and expoitation of the Russian working class and peasantry had to be far worse.
No wondew they raised not one finger to defend it when it fell.
uhhh i'm pretty sure the USSR never saw the depths of hell the same way the british proletariat did in the first half of the 19th century. at that time children were working 16 hour days and the urban life expectancy dipped to about 24 years old.
jools posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Stailn was just a figurehead of new and brutal stae capitalist ruling class, so of course he acted like other tyrants have always done.
Except, in the USSR things were much worse; they had to make up in 20 years what it had taken the 'advanced economies' centuries to achieve. So, the oppression and expoitation of the Russian working class and peasantry had to be far worse.
No wondew they raised not one finger to defend it when it fell.uhhh i'm pretty sure the USSR never saw the depths of hell the same way the british proletariat did in the first half of the 19th century. at that time children were working 16 hour days and the urban life expectancy dipped to about 24 years old.
I think you should read the history of the fSU a little more carefully, or perhaps a little less selectively.
jools posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Stailn was just a figurehead of new and brutal stae capitalist ruling class, so of course he acted like other tyrants have always done.
Except, in the USSR things were much worse; they had to make up in 20 years what it had taken the 'advanced economies' centuries to achieve. So, the oppression and expoitation of the Russian working class and peasantry had to be far worse.
No wondew they raised not one finger to defend it when it fell.uhhh i'm pretty sure the USSR never saw the depths of hell the same way the british proletariat did in the first half of the 19th century. at that time children were working 16 hour days and the urban life expectancy dipped to about 24 years old.
Begin here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm
gyrofry posted:well thats downright rude
Mild compared to your cavalier attituide to your own survival under a Stalinist regime.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:gyrofry posted:well thats downright rude
Mild compared to your cavalier attituide to your own survival under a Stalinist regime.
i am also cavalier about the threat of zombie apocalypse
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:No, I am saying that the workers in Russia and E Europe didn't defend 'their' states when they fell in the period 1989-1991. Or maybe you know differently.
In WW2, they were fighting for their lives. No wonder they defended their country.
What Lenin said was that socialism coudn't be built in one country, and that if the revolution failed in Germany they were doomed.
And he was right.
That might have been a more accurate statement if that's what you actually posited, but you didn't. Thanks for accepting that workers indeed defended the gains of the Union state rather than become collaborators en masse against their "terrible, despotic" regimes.
So you admit you know nothing of the August Putsch, or views of many, many Soviet and Warsaw Pact citizens toward this terrible Top Down socialism. No, they were all thrilled to see the restoration of capitalism, and there is no sympathy or political organization to re-create major sections of the Old System.
Stalin agreed that Communism could not be developed in one country alone, but that socialism could, and indeed Stalin spread Socialism to many countries, including Germany itself. What can Comrade Trotsky and the Trots say they have done to advance socialism in many countries (other than selling endless amounts of Trot papers and aiding the recycling industry greatly)?
You say you are not a Communist, and your anti-Communist rhetoric matches it -- what, then, is your goal, if not the development of Communism through Socialism? Anti-Leninist anarcho-socialist cooperative movements?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:What do you suggest Stalin does, just throw up his hands in 1933 and say, "well, Germany didn't rise up, time to pack in this revolution and go capitalist" (which is precisely what people criticize the CCP for doing) ?
Stailn was just a figurehead of new and brutal state capitalist ruling class, so of course he acted like tyrants have always done.
Lenin and Trotsky were both also figureheads of a new and ""brutal"" (Cheka? Kronstadt?) """"state capitalist"""" ruling class, and in fact, the NEP was far more """""state capitalist"""" than Stalin's collectivization and industrialization programs, so I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Except, in the USSR things were much worse; they had to make up in 20 years what it had taken the 'advanced economies' centuries to achieve. So, the oppression and expoitation of the Russian working class and peasantry had to be far worse.
No wondew they raised not one finger to defend it when it fell.
So you're not only saying that Stalin should have gone full laissez faire as soon as Hitler gained control, but you're saying that Trotsky and the SRs were right in the debate with Lenin and the Bolsheviks should never have seized power.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:jools posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Stailn was just a figurehead of new and brutal stae capitalist ruling class, so of course he acted like other tyrants have always done.
Except, in the USSR things were much worse; they had to make up in 20 years what it had taken the 'advanced economies' centuries to achieve. So, the oppression and expoitation of the Russian working class and peasantry had to be far worse.
No wondew they raised not one finger to defend it when it fell.uhhh i'm pretty sure the USSR never saw the depths of hell the same way the british proletariat did in the first half of the 19th century. at that time children were working 16 hour days and the urban life expectancy dipped to about 24 years old.
I think you should read the history of the fSU a little more carefully, or perhaps a little less selectively.
USSR had child labour?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:ilmdge:
The world can't survive in a capitalist world. An agrarian nation of peasants can be self-sufficient - won't need the capitalist world!
I agree, that is why we need socialism. And an agrarian society would be invaded. Have you not seen what happend in the 19th century?
That was a long time ago, and things have changed. For example, the USA could invade Cuba, and yet they refrain from doing so simply because humanity has reached a point where that kind of thing isn't tolerated. For a precise practical example, the documentary The Village (2004) proves that it is possible, even if in that case the Walker family had given an endowment to the National Forestry Service to ensure their society would be unmolested.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:deadken posted:if trotsky had succeeded lenin all the Super Sensitive Socialist Teens would be calling themselves stalinists. stalin enacted most of trotsky's policies, trotskyism is pure cult of personality, profoundly anti-materialist and totally gross
Is this supposed to be a class analysis? Or just sour grapes?
If Trotsky had have done what you say then I'd be the first to condemn him. Can you say the same about Mao and Stalin?
of course its class analysis. trotskyism is an aberration that forms along specific class lines. i'm sure you'd condemn trotsky if he'd been in power during the 30s and 40s. the question is whether your trotskyism has any substantive content beyond a prudish bourgeois disavowal of the achievements of actually existing socialism
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:deadken posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Once more, I am not a communist, so you can stop throwing this at me.
you want communism without communism, coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, sex without contact. degeneracy, pure degeneracy. *throws u in teh Trot bin*
No, I want a workers' state -- you can call it what you like, so long as the proletariat are in control.
Can you say the same?
i want the reunification of the categories of the aesthetic and the ethical, a world made fit for poetry, some doritos, and a hot dog
jools posted:im sorry rosa. i have to say it. im sorry.
but this all comes from an extremely undialectical reading of history, wherein you can somehow junk all of the stuff that (from your first world, labour aristocratic perspective) provokes a negative moral response (the purges, the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, the lack of - bourgeois - democracy, and so on) and think that there is somehow a "pure", unsullied "marxism" at the core that has none of bad, and all of the good, and that this Eternal Flame was carried through the 20th century by such successful revolutionaries as hal draper and john molyneux. this is just bad history! it betrays an atomised, methodologically individualist reading of events that is essentially unscientific.
this is 100% true.
