The only eastern Europeans that talk like this are techbro level radlibs of decades past that abandoned their countries for the west the moment they could leap the border like plague rats from a ship, or shithead kids who weren't even done shitting their diapers when the great collapse happened and remember the capitalist deluge that destroyed their families lives and livelihoods as "evil communism"
remember the capitalist deluge that destroyed their families lives and livelihoods as "evil communism"
Probably the most damning indictment of Soviet Era communism was that it produced a new generation that learned none of the lessons of history prior to their birth. The fact that Eastern Europeans rolled over for fascists in the 90s faster than they did for fascists in the 30s... Stalinism's biggest failure was its failure to socially reproduce.
By and large old former Soviet citizens long for being governed by the Soviets or note that the last time their countries didn't suck was under the Reds.
And insofar as "Stalinism" is concerned, ignoring how historically reductive it is to flatly call the entire history of the Soviet Union "Stalinism", I've already written about how the great patriotic war saw tens of thousands of the future of the CPSU massacred in the defense of the motherland, brutally stunting the in-flow of ideologically dedicated and educated new blood of the into the party for a few generations - corresponding to the stunting of population growth in the Soviet Union. Can you even imagine trying to grow a new generation of leadership when both the teachers and the students died due to war?
historically reductive it is to flatly call the entire history of the Soviet Union "Stalinism",
I certainly didn't intend that.
But there was a period of Stalinist theory present in the USSR that sharply diminished after his death. The revolutionary fervor and commitment to the project of Communism gave way to lifestylism and a simple yearning for consumerist luxury.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev got into the rat race of capitalist excess. And by the time Gorby got into office, the only way they knew how to measure progress was in capitalist terms.
Can you even imagine trying to grow a new generation of leadership when both the teachers and the students died due to war?
Lenin managed it, in the wake of WW1 and Stalin managed it in the wake of the Russian Civil War.
You would think a period devoid of major military conflicts would be a time for Soviet Communism to spread like wildfire.
But in the end, it seems like Maoism was what endured. The Russian Soviets won the right to rule for a generation, but could not convince their children and grandchildren to carry on what they started.
They collapsed into base ethnic nationalism and gave us United Russia, a hideous shadow of American Neoliberalism, in place of an enduring Soviet philosophy of governance.
present in the USSR that sharply diminished after his death. The revolutionary fervor and commitment to the project of Communism gave way to lifestylism and a simple yearning for consumerist luxury.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev got into the rat race of capitalist excess. And by the time Gorby got into office, the only way they knew how to measure progress was in capitalist terms.
Lenin managed it, in the wake of WW1 and Stalin managed it in the wake of the Russian Civil War.
You would think a period devoid of major military conflicts would be a time for Soviet Communism to spread like wildfire.
Both combined conflicts - the civil war and the great patriotic war - costed the Soviet peoples an excess of thirty million lives, with only eighteen years between the end of the civil war and the start of the anti-fascist war and eight short years between the end of the anti-fascist war and Stalin's death. This was a most grevious loss of life for both the people and the party. The best and brightest of the people's future were cut down then cut down again twofold leaving a great wound between the oldest and the youngest. The time required to cultivate a new generation of ideologically educated and dedicated cadre for the future leadership in the wake of the anti-fascist war did not match the demands of reality as requirements were loosened temporarily to fill important positions but were loosened permanently before Stalin could reimpliment chiskas as he had died and Soviet democracy was subverted by Khrushchev and Zhukov.
But in the end, it seems like Maoism was what endured. The Russian Soviets won the right to rule for a generation, but could not convince their children and grandchildren to carry on what they started.
Maoism was thrown out like used bathwater after Mao's death and the gang of four were thrown to the curb in favor of the Deng period's Bukharin-esque policies - which is a different topic alltogether. - Yet what is important to note between the Soviet experiment and the Sino experiment is that the Chinese have experienced a long and very uninterrupted era of peace after winning their wars. (This is to include the fact that the collective body of leadership of the CPC whom were united with Deng wisely chose to not throw Mao and his legacy under the bus to artificially solidify their legitimacy.) This period of peace was such an immense period of time you could visibly see the party's guiding policies change as their party congresses came and passed as an uninterrupted flow of new leaders were elected to the central committee whom themselves were experienced from decades of political work in the youth league and later on in the party proper when they aged out of their youth.
To compare and contrast, the Soviet Union faced two titanic struggles over the span of thirty-six years (from the start of the october revolution to the death of Stalin) where the work done after the first struggle was undone by the second, whereas the People's Republic faced a singular continuous and titanic struggle spanning a period of twenty-three years (from the start of the Northern Expedition to the proclamation of the People's Republic of China) and after attaining their victorious future had entered an era of long-lasting peace. - Yes I know the Korean War happened, those were heroic volunteers who payed back in blood for the blood of the heroes of the Korean volunteers that helped win the PRCs future. And we don't talk about the Sino-Vietnam war. Shhhhhh. 🤫
Yeah not for any real reason but I feel like this is a westerner appropriating the cool and authentic anti-communism of those people, personified by Arya gambo
The only eastern Europeans that talk like this are techbro level radlibs of decades past that abandoned their countries for the west the moment they could leap the border like plague rats from a ship, or shithead kids who weren't even done shitting their diapers when the great collapse happened and remember the capitalist deluge that destroyed their families lives and livelihoods as "evil communism"
Probably the most damning indictment of Soviet Era communism was that it produced a new generation that learned none of the lessons of history prior to their birth. The fact that Eastern Europeans rolled over for fascists in the 90s faster than they did for fascists in the 30s... Stalinism's biggest failure was its failure to socially reproduce.
By and large old former Soviet citizens long for being governed by the Soviets or note that the last time their countries didn't suck was under the Reds.
And insofar as "Stalinism" is concerned, ignoring how historically reductive it is to flatly call the entire history of the Soviet Union "Stalinism", I've already written about how the great patriotic war saw tens of thousands of the future of the CPSU massacred in the defense of the motherland, brutally stunting the in-flow of ideologically dedicated and educated new blood of the into the party for a few generations - corresponding to the stunting of population growth in the Soviet Union. Can you even imagine trying to grow a new generation of leadership when both the teachers and the students died due to war?
I certainly didn't intend that.
But there was a period of Stalinist theory present in the USSR that sharply diminished after his death. The revolutionary fervor and commitment to the project of Communism gave way to lifestylism and a simple yearning for consumerist luxury.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev got into the rat race of capitalist excess. And by the time Gorby got into office, the only way they knew how to measure progress was in capitalist terms.
Lenin managed it, in the wake of WW1 and Stalin managed it in the wake of the Russian Civil War.
You would think a period devoid of major military conflicts would be a time for Soviet Communism to spread like wildfire.
But in the end, it seems like Maoism was what endured. The Russian Soviets won the right to rule for a generation, but could not convince their children and grandchildren to carry on what they started.
They collapsed into base ethnic nationalism and gave us United Russia, a hideous shadow of American Neoliberalism, in place of an enduring Soviet philosophy of governance.
Both combined conflicts - the civil war and the great patriotic war - costed the Soviet peoples an excess of thirty million lives, with only eighteen years between the end of the civil war and the start of the anti-fascist war and eight short years between the end of the anti-fascist war and Stalin's death. This was a most grevious loss of life for both the people and the party. The best and brightest of the people's future were cut down then cut down again twofold leaving a great wound between the oldest and the youngest. The time required to cultivate a new generation of ideologically educated and dedicated cadre for the future leadership in the wake of the anti-fascist war did not match the demands of reality as requirements were loosened temporarily to fill important positions but were loosened permanently before Stalin could reimpliment chiskas as he had died and Soviet democracy was subverted by Khrushchev and Zhukov.
Maoism was thrown out like used bathwater after Mao's death and the gang of four were thrown to the curb in favor of the Deng period's Bukharin-esque policies - which is a different topic alltogether. - Yet what is important to note between the Soviet experiment and the Sino experiment is that the Chinese have experienced a long and very uninterrupted era of peace after winning their wars. (This is to include the fact that the collective body of leadership of the CPC whom were united with Deng wisely chose to not throw Mao and his legacy under the bus to artificially solidify their legitimacy.) This period of peace was such an immense period of time you could visibly see the party's guiding policies change as their party congresses came and passed as an uninterrupted flow of new leaders were elected to the central committee whom themselves were experienced from decades of political work in the youth league and later on in the party proper when they aged out of their youth.
To compare and contrast, the Soviet Union faced two titanic struggles over the span of thirty-six years (from the start of the october revolution to the death of Stalin) where the work done after the first struggle was undone by the second, whereas the People's Republic faced a singular continuous and titanic struggle spanning a period of twenty-three years (from the start of the Northern Expedition to the proclamation of the People's Republic of China) and after attaining their victorious future had entered an era of long-lasting peace. - Yes I know the Korean War happened, those were heroic volunteers who payed back in blood for the blood of the heroes of the Korean volunteers that helped win the PRCs future. And we don't talk about the Sino-Vietnam war. Shhhhhh. 🤫
Yeah not for any real reason but I feel like this is a westerner appropriating the cool and authentic anti-communism of those people, personified by Arya gambo
By cool and authentic, do you mean debil and borscht-brained?