In the end it doesn't matter, since i uncontrollably
Say what you like about Khruschev, "my vas pokhoronim" goes so hard.
Also, Lysenkoism cast a huge shadow on Stalinism, to the point that without it, all the anti-communist critiques would merely sound like whiny sore losers, instead of having a tangible historical point to make.
Yes but he had already done a lot of damage. His ideas were even a contributing factor to the famine in China, if any communist is a "mass murderer" it's that quack
In fact, Khrushchev helped him regain his standing, because Stalin was openly critical of his lack of scientific advancements, but died before kicking him out.
Not the same way he purged Lysenko's rivals, or the majority of high-ranking Bolsheviks since the revolution.
The majority of the Bolsheviks who conducted the revolution deserved to be purged?
Now there's a take.
I dont know why you feel an absurd attachment to just a few of the 'top' bolsheviks. Trotsky for one was just a menshevik so no one should care. the buhkarin clique was NEP nonsense that would have gotten the soviet union killed if their plan had been implemented. The trotsky clique was indeed planning a coup and the evidence points to using outside help from the west and japan to do so in exchange for some territorial concessions. Trotsky also had connections to the military and associates that were planning an overthrow in conjunction with the buhkarin clique. Zinoviev was an opportunist who sided with the reactionaries in kronstadt and other reactionary groups just to gain power. People who give a shit about zinoviev in the year of our lord 2024 are just reactionaries or left coms who make their whole ideology worrying about and being irrelevant things. As well as nerds who goon about the 'lenin testament' which is an unverified and highly dubious source.
All of the bolshevik cliques were going to murder each other, no matter who won. This is the inevitable result of Lenin's revolutionary coalition falling apart after he died. The anti stalinists killed people like Kirov, an excellent organizer, just because he was stalin's friend. Stalin was too nice, and should have given similar punishments out, but alas actually followed democratic centralism and the laws of the soviet union. the leadership of the soviet union was never going to be just the same 40 dudes anyway, have you gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
All of the bolshevik cliques were going to murder each other, no matter who won.
have you gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
Remind me to never join a party with you in it. Or, alternatively, to immediately take steps to ensure my own security if I do.
Idk, if I modeled myself after someone (or some clique) who turned all their friends into enemies, I'd be very wary of where my own path was pointing. I haven't spent years digging into the One Truth lying behind thousands of pages of minutiae, my understanding of how people work comes from direct experiences of them and applying a statistical perspective to it. I spent enough time familiarizing myself with prominent agents of the Russian Revolution to realize that barely any of their deaths were of natural causes, and an unusual number of them were in a spike 20 years after taking power.
I'm not "attached to the Bolsheviks" at all. I'm pointing out that the worst enemy of a Bolshevik was another Bolshevik. In no other socialist revolution do you see a party's leadership fragmenting and one fragment killing off all the others more than a decade after the political situation has stabilized. Even if you include the precursor of revolutionary France, the purges happened only early on and amidst wars.
This is the inevitable result of Lenin's revolutionary coalition falling apart after he died.
Would you want to model a party where without its Great Man, it instantly turned into an internal power struggle? Because that looks to me like at best a failure to democratize power, and at worst a replication of the dynamics of monarchy.
Pretty sure Lysenko was the one promoting how much Stalin likes him, when Stalin wrote some of his ideas were dumb and cut out like half a speech that Lysenko was to give
(Imagine if you say that biology is akin to class conflict and Stalin writes "ha ha, and what about the class character of Darwinism??" On a speech you wrote, to give yourself, and sends it back to you? Ouch)
The original corporate redesign
Show
Everyone uses this as if it is THE flag of the Soviet Union despite it not being used in 1917-55, which was the most pivotal era of the Union. Like what the fuck does the 55 flag have to it's name? It didn't experience ww2, it wasn't triumphantly raised over the reichstag. Just a stupid attempt at 'destalinization', an attempt which discarded the flag under which tens of millions bled fighting against fascism. FUCK YOU KHRUSCHEV (love you for aiding natlib movements though ❤️ )
I don’t get the hexbears saying they like this one better.
I like the latter ngl. Not saying I don’t like the original, or that I’m endorsing Kruschev, but I like that the space with just red is simply larger. Red as a color evokes a lot of emotion, and as symbolic the sickle and hammer are as communist icons, it’s more important to emphasize the natural strength of passion that binds all of us. Also prefer the less bubbly sickly and hammer of the latter.
Lastly, I think the 2nd one works better as a unifying banner for world wide communism and the original is too provincial. Why? Fuck if I know. Edit: Actually, I think it’s because the original has a very Russian aesthetic, probably because of the more pronounced swoop of the sickle
Will agree the original evokes a lot of WWII imagery
more red is more better, the original flag of the workers movement is an unadorned red flag
yeah and the USSR was an actual entity not just the symbol of the working class, since it wasn't just a workers movement. People forget how the bolsheviks lead the way in worker-peasant unity for the building of a socialist state, and that is why they had the hammer and sickle.
also if you're going to complain, the hammer and sickle only are on one side of the USSR flag. The other is plain red
if you're going to complain
i'm not complaining, as long as there are different entities it'd be confusing for them to use all-red in every context. but i like when the flags have more red for that reason
the swooped sickle was just similar to the symbols of communism from the 20s and earlier. everyone had a similar symbol.
It has Sputnik and Gagarin. And I kinda like this hammer and sickle more.
The hamsick + star are larger over all in the earlier version, and the sickle is longer and more curved. That's what I noticed at least.
theyre basically identical, i cant imagine giving a shit
Death to America
I'm a bit of a flag nerd. I like the Soviet flag (all versions) but it is far from the best one. A good flag should:
- Be unique. (Check, no one is confused about this one)
- Have a reasonablee color scheme (Check, the colors are great)
- Have a reasonable design (Check, but you can fail this one real bad)
- Contain no writing (Check, obviously)
- Be possible for a child to draw without any training (Fail, drawing a hammer and sickle is actually pretty difficult even for an adult)
The best flag in the world is Vietnam and the worst one is Cape Verde, or possibly Bosnia and Herzegovina bacause of the inexplicalbe design decision to cut stars in half.
I hate that check list, not gonna lie
A good flag should be aesthetically pleasing to me, who cares if a child could draw it? A flag is going to be printed by a printer, sown (rarely if ever this century) or displayed on a screen, not whatever child labour system was previously relied on.
Show
Your list: 1. Unique. 2. What does reasonable even mean, give me a vapourwave flag pls. But check anyway. 3. Great design. 4. The design is the words. 5. Nope.
My list: yeah it looks great, no need for a contrived list to justify saying something looks good because some nerd thinks it's easy for a child to draw 50 stars but not a hammer and sickle
good flag bad flag is well established to be bullshit and should not be taken seriously in any way. numerous excellent flags break one or more of those rulesDeath to America
I would say the Seychelles are close to the bottom, too. I haven't got the foggiest idea what colors or order to put them in. And if we're accepting national subdivisions, Maryland is pretty shit, too.
Be possible for a child to draw without any training (Fail, drawing a hammer and sickle is actually pretty difficult even for an adult)
I learned to use a ruler properly while drawing the UK flag on a sheet of paper back when I was 8 years old and a lib.
I think I am from the universe where the Soviet flag didn’t have the little star on it
The 1955 one went to space
which is really cool, but the 1936 one can smell fascists and floats off the pole to wrap itself around their necks until dead
and it would have done just fine in space tooI like them both.
The newer one (being wider and more symmetrical at the bottom) has a pleasing sort of triangle going on, like an arrow pointing towards the star. The old one just kinda has a star above it.
I kinda like the wider sickle thing on the old one on its own though.
Also it looks like the new one is a bit brighter. The darker tone makes it seem more badass somehow, but badassery is not really the main point you'd want to convey.
the sickle just looks nicer, and my brain is happy seeing how nicely it fits with the hammer
i dont think that was the actual flag, just a recreation, as that specific coat of arms was under the stalin administration. And this flag came into use for only the first four months of the union's existence before being replaced by the hammer and sickle we know and love. So technically this would be the first actual flag of the USSR.
Show
the 1923-24 version
before the 1925 adoption of the stalin version
