That was a horrifying accident

Love that

My issue with vanguardism is its potential to dissolve in authoritarianism, and that the party does not have the ability to self-critique

ultimately the party just creates a new bourgeoisie made of red bureaucrats

Can i see a source

@RobotWizard That's a common complaint among Trots and Anarchists. "Authoritarianism" means nothing to me in this regard as the revolution is not a tea party, and discipline is essential in ensuring the survival of the revolution. As for self-critique, democratic centralism as theorized by Lenin necessitates the free flow of ideas within the party.

The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of anaction decided on by the Party.

limiting the area of acceptable discourse to only the confines of the party is the problem

@chill with that shit

I cannot read russian sir

You want to have American source on Russian statistics imbecile?

I'm not gonna just go off a picture and words I can't read

what is counted as disruptive to that unity is defined by the party

I want an English source on russian statistics

Yes

cyka

English is a very common language there's bound to be something that can tell me in english, proof of high population growth

@chill with that shit But where this source will obtain data?

Fam i just need like

That translated

AHA ill find a russian

@RobotWizard Once a democratic consensus has been reached, then yeah, anything contradicting that would be considered disruptive.

Translate it. You don't need translation. Can you count?

I will search near and far for a russian

The picture is no better then to other one of if cant read the shit

That's like me sending you proof the Holocaust didn't happen in german

@chill with that shit Well you can't read the source because the source is Russian.

Then I'll get someone who can

Simple

I can

I agree with the importance of democratic consensus but its pretty clear in the Soviet Union's or China's case that consensus was clearly forced through the use of violence

Ya but

It's your thing so you could be lying out your ass

So

Ima get like, muh russian boi who is a hardcore putiner

Yaaaaaa

K shalom

@chill with that shit You got now two sources in English and Russian

The first one is not a source

It's an image

And numbers

The first one can't be a source it is in English

It wasn't though. Soviet Democracy was based on Direct Democracy. In a Soviet democracy, voters are organized in basic units, for example the workers of a company, the inhabitants of a district, or the soldiers of a barracks. They directly send the delegates as public functionaries, which act as legislators, government and courts in one. In contrast to earlier democracy models according to Locke and Montesquieu, there is no division of powers. The councils are elected on several levels: At the residential and business level, delegates are sent to the local councils in plenary assemblies. These, in turn, can delegate members to the next level. The system of delegation continues to the Congress of Soviets at state level. The electoral processes thus take place from the bottom upwards. The levels are usually tied to administrative levels.

I aint understandin you for shit so ima just peace

If you like a source you have it man.

Ya but I wanna know what it says

It says the same thing

-_-

As the picture in English

I dont think so

There's a lot of words

Just look at numbers

And the English meme got like

A couple

No

I wanna know what it says

"Despite their relative discipline, the Bolsheviks were not of one mind, the Party being a coalition of committed revolutionaries, but with somewhat differing views as to what was practical and proper. These diverging tendencies resulted in debates within the Party over the next decade, followed by a period of consolidation of the Party as definite programs were adopted."

here's a source in sanskrit, fuck you if you wanna read it: meatspin.com

@chill with that shit It is an invitation to participate in demographic research with past researches results

Cool

That's not all of it though

People were free to criticize without fear of violent retaliation. And yeah, people disagreed with Stalin at times. He didn't mind it.

ok...

He's often painted as some kind of brutish sociopath but this couldn't be further from the truth.

https://youtu.be/XmIxpYVXIHc

He was a very agreeable and personable individual.

you got some citations here for saying that he didn't crush political dissent

I'm pretty sure Trotsky would strongly disagree

Well, Stalin didn't have absolute power.. He wasn't the Czar, so he couldn't have singlehandedly crushed any dissenters.

"Political opposition in the USSR was barely visible and, with rare exceptions, of little consequence." -- Barber, John (October 1997). "Opposition in Russia". Government and Opposition. 32 (4): 598–613. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb00448.x.

anyone got any ideas for posters or anything?

I'm bored and love to produce that kind of stuff, even if it's just an amature hobby thing

How about an /OurGuy poster?

@rhinoceros leftypol international members slauthering fascist scum?

In the decades following Stalin's death in 1953, the existence of interest groups and lobbies within the party and state apparatuses was persuasively argued by foreign observers; and occasionally fractional opposition within the ruling elite surfaced. The latter aimed at reversing specific policies and, twice, at replacing the country's leader — Khrushchev on both occasions, unsuccessfully in 1957 and successfully in 1964. From the 1960s onwards, dissent from the regime's values and goals was reflected in the statements and actions of individuals and small groups, often described as the ‘Soviet dissident movement’, though lacking either common objectives and strategy, or impact on the Soviet Union's rulers.

@Firefly Like you ever could!

@Firefly#9983 oh my

seems like there was opposition

of course

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/opposition-in-russia/134985172F2C3C715F622FC48111A4F2

i love how in real life actual communists and fascists only make up a total of about 3% of the population

could it be destalinization that created space for actual opposition

you know because Stalin crushed it?

fascists are a ton more than 3%, because by nature fascism isn't too open about it, as it needs to lure people in with more moderate-seeming authoritarianism

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1997.tb00448.x/full

@rhinoceros People see fascism as the most radical there can be.

@RobotWizard Of course. After Stalin's death the termites came out of the woodworks, Khrushchev being one of them. Many of these interest groups were funded by Western intelligence agencies. It's difficult being a socialist island surrounded by a sea of capitalism.

nah i'm pretty sure fascists only make up about 4% at most

the full quote literally talks how the USSR was structured in a way that made dissent difficult

and that's a stretch

no

that quote you fed me was clearly out of context here

@RobotWizard The post-stalin years proved that notion wrong.

Ayo

And prior to Stalin's death, there was minor opposition. Nobody was ever put to death by Stalin or his government for expressing their criticisms.

@Deleted User That is doubtable.....

@RobotWizard I didn't source that directly from the book, but an article that cited a passage from it. What you were talking about had more to do with political dissidents within the party apparatus.