/lit/ - Literature

Every single thing Stalin got right he took from Trotsky.

The kulaks only developed as a class because they considered the Left Opposition's call for collectivization too utopian at first. Allowing capitalism to remain alive in the countryside is what caused the famine in the 30's and Stalin is almost individually to blame for it. Planned industrialization was also at first a Trotskyite concept, despite Stalin stubbornly standing against it for the first years.

Let's not even get into WW2. Stalinists believe Nazi Germany would "fall" on its own somehow, and Trotsky said the Soviet Union should strike first while Germany was busy with France.

I literally cannot think of a single good thing Stalin did that Trotsky wouldn't have done earlier and better. (inb4 killing Trotsky)

>>6132652
Not engaging in a full out war against the rest of the world to follow the dream of "permanent revolution"?

Uncle Stalin did nothing wrong.

>>6132682
>Not engaging in a full out war against the rest of the world to follow the dream of "permanent revolution"?

I see Stalinists have libertarian-tier understanding of theory

>>6132652
>Every single thing Stalin got right he took from Trotsky.
That's very hard to believe, he was writing communist theory since before the revolution.

> Planned industrialization was also at first a Trotskyite concept, despite Stalin stubbornly standing against it for the first years.
It was hardly unique to Trotsky, and there's decent reason to believe that Stalin supported the NEP primarily to gain Lenin's favor (it worked enough), since he reversed his position as soon as he had power.
>Allowing capitalism to remain alive in the countryside is what caused the famine in the 30's
That's very debatable, and you certainly can't say Stalin didn't try as hard as he could to reverse Lenin's concession to private enterprise.

>Let's not even get into WW2. Stalinists believe Nazi Germany would "fall" on its own somehow, and Trotsky said the Soviet Union should strike first while Germany was busy with France.
Don't you really think that would have been a good idea? I mean, think about it, the original Russian Revolution was largely caused by Russians fighting in a war they didn't want to fight in. Fighting a defensive war against German is one thing, but starting one is really asking for trouble from the Russian people.

>I literally cannot think of a single good thing Stalin did that Trotsky wouldn't have done earlier and better.

>>6132652
>I literally cannot think of a single good thing Stalin did that Trotsky wouldn't have done earlier and better. (inb4 killing Trotsky)
The Purge. Stalin abruptly killed all dissension and struggles within the party. He went a little overboard, but I don't see how he could have moderately killed all possible dissenters.

>>6132652
>Let's not even get into WW2. Stalinists believe Nazi Germany would "fall" on its own somehow
Yeah, that's why he mobilized a million troops to fight the fascists right? Stalin was punked by the French and British.

bump

First of all, its hard to gauge how successful Stalinism was, because the blueprints for industry were already laid down by the British. Had Stalin come to power pre-industrial revolution, its unlikely he would have independantly developed industry.

Secondly, productional output is useless unless its being used. Yes Stalin increase production - but look at the human cost. And what for? You'll find no hint of culture or aesthetisism among the Russians. They lived in commie blocks that are offensive to the eye, they lived in poverty and filth like disgusting rats and simply worked for the sake of working. I would rather live in a tribe and be a man free to pursue his spiritual interests than a husk of a person living in an industrialized Russia. This realtes back to what Stirner said about Communist - to them, man isn't man, man is only worth his own labor. And that to me is a pointless life. I don't even feel sorry for the 100 million people that starved because of Stalin - they aren't human enough to feel sympathy for. They were simply biological machines. Death was a kind end for them.

>>6133894
>100 million people that starved because of Stalin
Goddamn, dude, if you're gonna give input one a topic like this on /lit/, at least have more than baby tier knowledge of it.

>>6134037

>if i deny it, it won't be true!

>>6132682
Let's squash the National Socialists with our Socialist Nationalism! It's totally different!

>>6134045
Because if you say so, it will?

>>6133894
Not even the Black Book of Communism managed to invent such a number. Good one anon

>>6134049
>actual socialism is different from socialism as bourgeois rhetoric
Ya think?

>>6132607
i'm not gonna lie, stalinposting is a pretty dank meme

>>6134103
It is good not to lie, Comrade. Lying is very bourgeois.

>>6132699
Do you expect anything more from the people who think anything goes so long as "muh production increased"?

>>6135490

>communists

>>6135497
>facts stop being facts when the table those facts went in were posted on /pol/

This is probably the furthest I've seen someone take this.

>>6135511
dont you have some rockets to test?

>>6135511

I just saw it explode before takeoff, communist funding you know.

>>6135518
derp

>>6135548
The GDP of Soviet Russia in 1990 was lethargic compared to the industrious West, and this was despite the possible explanation of vampirism from Soviet satellite states.

The reality is that Stalinist Communism is so comically inefficient an economic doctrine that literal Greece was an economic POWERHOUSE compared to pretty much every single Soviet state.

>>6135558
Maybe you should check the article in OP.

You can call it inefficient, but it was under Stalin that famines in Russia ended for good.

>>6135562
Maybe you should check the entire historical record you slovenly fuckold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

>>6135569
>I honestly can't read

>>6135576
That's pretty apparent given that you actually think the Soviet Union had any kind of economic success that wasn't based on industrialization by proxy through the policies and innovations of actually successful countries.

Want to talk hunger?

Tell it to a Ukranian, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

>>6135569
There were a hundred and fifty famines in Russia alone before then. With Stalin, the last famine ended in 1947.

>>6135588
funny guy

>>6135605
The rate of famines in the USSR is practically symmetrical with the rate of historical famines, the death toll is much higher, and this is DESPITE THE FACT that industrialization in the West pretty much solved that problem.

>>6135614
>The rate of famines in the USSR is practically symmetrical with the rate of historical famines
Except for the fact that they completely stopped after 1947

> the death toll is much higher
WWI, Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, WWII. That fucks shit up.

>industrialization in the West pretty much solved that problem.
Yeah, and Stalin industrialized Russia. He covered a lot of ground in a relatively short time.

>>6135636
Except for the fact that they didn't combined with losing approximately 20% of their population and the development of industrialization.

>Yeah, and Stalin industrialized Russia. He covered a lot of ground in a relatively short time.

The capitalists did it far better in the West without implementing a retarded, totalitarian government that attenuated the benefits of capitalism while simultaneously claiming credit for them.

>>6135643
>Except for the fact that they didn't
They did.

>combined with losing approximately 20% of their population
Dur hurr, after practically back-to-back domestic wars, a severe drought, and then the most destructive war in history in the country that was damaged the most by it.

>and the development of industrialization.
Due mainly to Stalin.

>The capitalists did it far better in the West
Russia didn't even go through the Renaissance ffs, they were really behind the curve. They were still using hoses to plow fields when Stalin started. What he accomplished was nothing short of a miracle.

>>6135562
>You can call it inefficient, but it was under Stalin that famines in Russia ended for good.

That's an absolute lie stop posting this

>>6135636
millions died during collectivization and agricultural production didn't recover until the 1950s. After all that, the USSR had to import wheat from the West during the 1970s.

>>6135614
India 1943/4

Go fuck yourself.

>>6135714
>100% mad

>>6135725
>millions died during collectivization and agricultural production didn't recover until the 1950s
Collectivization can't be shown to link with decline in production, I've already been over this. The first harvest after mass collectivization was plentiful, it was the one after that which was shit (see pic)
>>6132720

>After all that, the USSR had to import wheat from the West during the 1970s.
Yeah, care to check what percentage of food came from import? And care to check the rise in exports?

>>6135770
from wiki:
>The Soviet Union had turned to Canada and Western Europe for one-third of its grain supplies, as well as to Argentina, Eastern Europe, Australia, and China

>>6132607
Maybe, but real life isn't Civ (or Tropico) and autocratic governments tend to go to shit if they don't mellow out and start adopting more liberalized attitudes.

>>6133894
>only valued by their labor
Capitalism revolves around people's labor being essential to the private enterprises making money. Without laborers they don't make anything, Adam Smith even acknowledged that eventually a successful capitalist wouldn't do anything and just get money for existing, especially if he opened up in a town without ANY jobs. Communism believes in rewarding people based on their labor and skill of labor, which is where Stalin failed, he didn't give appropriate rewards and would violently punish the smallest lacks of meeting quota.

>>6135927
They only go to shit if countries that choose to always take the moral highground/think they're nonstop awesome get involved. Korea was united until the US said "NO COMMIES!!!!" and forced the newborn UN to form a democratic state that NO KOREANS WANTED UNTIL THE US MADE IT. They were simply butthurt that a group actually wanted autocracy and communism because their whole mindset was that no country would voluntarily choose communism, since the DPRK shattered that in the early 50s, they reacted like a five year old child; violently.

>>6135891
That's the very high point of the 1980's. The 1970's important of grain was a very practical thing to do, considering the end o thef Bretton Woods system devaluated the shit out of the dollar, and made importing grain quite cheap. It wasn't a response to famine risk.

>>6133894
Actually Soviet Russia achieved one of the highest level of average education in world history. Old folks in Russia are surprisingly well-read.

>>6135994
and now we have south korea.