this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13609 readers
732 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the end it doesn't matter, since i uncontrollably zoidberg saluting 1 whenever is see either of them

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

didn't stalin eventually purge lysenko

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Dolores@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

damn even kruschev didn't purge him lol

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not the same way he purged Lysenko's rivals, or the majority of high-ranking Bolsheviks since the revolution.

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The majority of the Bolsheviks who conducted the revolution deserved to be purged?

Now there's a take.

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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?

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Hexboare@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

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)