Pretty cringe my dude
Context, taken from the document "The Anglo-Russian Unity Committee", Stalin's collected works, 1926:
The question arises: What more do Zinoviev and Trotsky want of us?
What they want is that our Soviet trade unions should either break with the Anglo-Russian Committee, or that they, acting from here, from Moscow, should overthrow the General Council. But that is stupid, comrades. To demand that we, acting from Moscow, and by-passing the British workers' trade unions, by-passing the British trade-union masses, by-passing the British trade-union officials, skipping over them, that we, acting from here, from Moscow, should overthrow the General Council -- is not that stupid, comrades?
They demand a demonstrative rupture. Is it difficult to understand that if we did that, the only result would be our own discomfiture? Is it difficult to understand that in the event of a rupture we lose contact with the British trade-union movement, we throw the British trade unions into the embraces of the Sassenbachs and Oudegeests, we shake the foundations of the united front tactics, and we delight the hearts of the Churchills and Thomases, without getting anything in return except discomfiture?
Trotsky takes as the starting point of his policy of theatrical gestures, not concrete human beings, not the concrete workers of flesh and blood who are living and struggling in Britain, but some sort of ideal and ethereal beings who are revolutionary from head to foot. Is it difficult, however, to understand that only persons devoid of common sense take ideal, ethereal beings as the starting point of their policy?
That is why we think that the policy of theatrical gestures, the policy of overthrowing the General Council from Moscow, by the efforts of Moscow alone, is a ridiculous and adventurist policy.
The policy of gestures has been the characteristic feature of Trotsky's whole policy ever since he joined our Party. We had a first application of this policy at the time of the Brest Peace, when Trotsky refused to sign the German-Russian peace agreement and countered it with a theatrical gesture, believing that a gesture was enough to rouse the proletarians of all countries against imperialism. That was a policy of gestures. And, comrades, you know very well how dear that gesture cost us. Into whose hands did that theatrical gesture play? Into the hands of the imperialists, the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and all who were then trying to strangle the Soviet power, which at that time was not firmly established.
Now we are asked to adopt the same policy of theatrical gestures towards the Anglo-Russian Committee. They demand a demonstrative and theatrical rupture. But who would benefit from that theatrical gesture? Churchill and Chamberlain Sassenbach and Oudegeest. That is what they want. That is what they are waiting for. They, the Sassenbachs and Oudegeests, want us to make a demonstrative break with the British labour movement and thus render things easier for Amsterdam. They, the Churchills and Chamberlains, want the break in order to make it easier for them to launch intervention to provide them with a moral argument in favour of the interventionists.
These are the people into whose hands our oppositionists are playing.
No, comrades, we cannot adopt this adventurist course.
:stalin-shining: But such is the fate of "ultra-Left" phrasemongers. Their phrases are Leftist, but in practice it turns out that they are aiding the enemies of the working class. You go in on the Left and come out on the Right. :stalin-shining:
No, comrades, we shall not adopt this policy of theatrical gestures -- we shall no more adopt it today than we did at the time of the Brest Peace. We shall not adopt it because we do not want our Party to become a plaything in the hands of our enemies.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/anglo-russian-unity.htm
If you actually read Stalin in context, with an understanding of the terms he is using, this quote makes perfect sense. In fact, the idea put forward in this quote is not original, it comes from Lenin. Worst thing Stalin ever did is be way to soft on Roosevelt and dissolve the Communist International.
Well, I disagree with Lenin on that thing too, but Lenin was more of an 85-15 guy.
Also he had reasons to be soft on Roosevelt, because Roosevelt was helping to send the USSR aid during the war, and its not wise to piss off the guy helping you.
Just saying, you can't separate Stalin from Lenin or Marxism in general, as many try to do. If you disagree with Marxism, then that's a whole other thing. The thing with being soft on Roosevelt is that it slid into the realm of carelessness rather than a strategic thing.
you can’t separate Stalin from Lenin or Marxism in general, as many try to do.
i know, even lenin tried.
Juche necromancy was discovered too late to save him :deeper-sadness:
If FDR lived for the rest of his term into the post-war I'm assuming he was planning on strengthening ties with the Soviet Union and assisting them in rebuilding and leaving Germany a ruin. If he pulled this off, do you think it would have led to a more powerful independent Soviet Union or would it have allowed the U.S. to covertly liberalize it? Or maybe made communism more palapatle to people in the U.S.? seems like we could have entered a vastly different historical trajectory, not sure if good or bad for socialism though.
No you see comrade, if you did your own research you would realize that everyone to the left of Stalin in was secretly a Right opportunist.
:gulag:
Everyone to the right of Stalin? Openly a Right opportunist!
:gulag:
Those that stand loyally immediately below Stalin? They are the most Right opportunist of all.
:gulag:
Lmao.
Yeah, critical support to the man who tried to form a front against the nazis with the West and was refused because they wanted him and the nazis to take each other out.
Lmao, Mao and Stalin opportunists. One can only laught.
Westerners did not want to fight against Nazis, this makes Stalin's economic support to Nazis and explicit deals in carving up Europe OK. Flawless logic. Mao, the guy who wanted all the classes to collaborate with each other in building a new China, totally a socialist thing to do, is not an opportunist. Lol
Yes, trade with the only countries willing to trade with you is bad, actually. If that surprises you wait until you hear about the economic support by absolutely everyone else to the nazis.
Lmao at "carving out Europe". If you want a nazi Poland you can just say so.
Thank god randomchapouser27362717 is here not just to criticize past leaders, oh no, but to talk about how they SUCKED, were terrible and actually the people who supported them were wrong too.
Economic relations with a country whose party in power had the open goal of destroying Bolshevism is alright, not to mention the economic relation involved materials critical to the German war machine. Amazing logic. Also the USSR had trade relations with UK and USA, their initial five year plans involved importing American machinery and trained engineers who were critical in their industrialization.
Lmao at “carving out Europe”. If you want a nazi Poland you can just say so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks
Thank god camaron28 is here to defend an idiotic moron who caused immense damage to the communist movement.
Everyone in Eastern Europe would have gotten exterminated by the Wehrmacht if people like you were in charge of the Soviet Union lol.
I don't know, I couldve done better than the 40 million dead by not trading with the Nazis, focusing on building defences rather than trusting Nazis till the last moment, and actually listening to my generals.
I. You don't at least feign friendly relations with the Germans to buy time for rebuilding the Soviet military.
II. As a result, Hitler decides you're the more immediate threat compared to the Allies and invade you immediately after Poland.
III. France and Britain do nothing but watch with relish and likely implicitly support it.
IV. You're likely invaded by Japan as well, since the dire resource situation that would historically necessitate their decision to bomb Pearl Harbor is two years away so their forces are unoccupied for awhile.
V. Without those two additional years of preparation for the Red Army, you lose.
VI. Congratulations, everyone in Eastern Europe (200+ million people) is enslaved or killed.
What part of my comment was false. Did the USSR not trade critical materials with the Nazis? Did they not ask to be part of the Axis? Did they not make up plans to have "spheres of influence" side-by-side with the Nazis? Did Stalin not make dumb strategic decisions?
Did Marx and Engels call for state ownership as socialism, did they think socialism in one country was possible? Do you even know why Bernstein is a revisionist?
Never met a real ultra before.
If Stalin and Mao are counter revolutionaries doesn't that mean communism basically died in 1924?
Yes. The communist movement died when it failed to go international.
First you gotta put your neck into it
Don't stop, just do, do it
Then you roll your tongue, from the crack back to the front
