Leftists are usually such feminine pussies

Leftists are usually such feminine pussies

Explain then how the Soviet Union was an exception

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jm2UvE1aLh8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#Disagreements_in_leadership
youtube.com/watch?v=-l53FPENoAU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They were authoritarian left, the faggots we see now are libertarian left.

/thread

The (((Bolsheviks))) were leftist pussies. Actual Russian people weren't leftists, and hardship made them strong.

They are Russian.

This.

They were strong men who couldn't have their say.

>implying most of those soldiers didn't pretend to be commies

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a euroskeptic nationalist revolution. The Bolsheviks weren't the main driver, they simply happened to be in the right place at the right time -- they were the only euroskeptic political party at the time.

The point is that the USSR was not a leftist country despite being ruled by a leftist party. (This conflict was one reason why the USSR collapsed.)

Based uncuckable ruskies

>funding

Because leftists used to represent worker's rights back in the day but now they stand for queer liberation and hold labourers in contempt.

because back then leftists were nationalist and cared about their culture. the left of today is different in so many ways.

USSR wasn't communism, it was state-capitalism.

True communism has never been tried.

...

Cause Sup Forums confuses left with right. Your lefties are actually liberals. It means they must be on the right side of political spectrum. Only commies and socialists are really lefties.

>the bolsheviks were nationalists who cared about their culture

Are you unironically retarded? Nationalism is literally the first obstacle to any kind of communism and the only cultures they cared about were non-Russian ones.

They were basically ordinary Russian imperial nationalists with a thin veneer of communism left over from the time before the kikes were purged.

youtube.com/watch?v=jm2UvE1aLh8

Leftism is a destabilizatory phenomenon. Good for fucking up a country and taking over - extremely bad for governing. The Soviets actually did want to continue ruling the Soviet Union, so they very quickly toned all that holiness-signalling shit to levels where they could actually run a country after a fashion.

I recommend Yuri Bezmenov's interviews/lectures. Find them on youtube.

It was great era, just compare these guys to BLM niggers

If I may bring some psychology to the table... Classical marxism is based off of naivete. The Soviet Union wasn't classical Marxist because they realized that it doesnt work. The Soviet Union was basicall national bolshevism which is classical marxism minus all of the cultural cancers that come with communism

eh

they are leftists and communists, although unknowingly. they are protected by our mostly libertarian constitution and legal precedent.

its slowly been eroded over the years though, they are going farther into the authoritarian wing

Russia has such a sad history, will its people ever have a decent life?

You know the saying, "lions led by donkeys"? Well, the Soviet Union was Slav savages led (or, rather, directed at targets) by Jew schemers.

Stalin realized that nobody was going to die in the name of 5 year plans so the commies brought nationalism back

This. Question answered, close thread.

I think a truer analysis is that Stalin killed all the Jews in the Great Purge.

The people themselves may be, but they want a Big Brother government to force their bullshit 'tolerance' and 'diversity.'

>leftists were nationalist and cared about their culture. the left of today is different in so many ways.

>leftist nationalists
>bolsheviks

I'm pretty sure the leadership of the Bolsheviks were mainly kikes or nonrussians who cared very little for Russian culture and people.

Russian aren't pussies, but they aren't bright either

>Trusting a german kike (Lenin)
>Trusting a pure kike (Trotsky)
>Trusting anyone after Stalin

t. High school student

Naturally, you know better, user, but I think that calling them commies sounds very loud. If they do not mind private ownership of the means of production, they are not commies for sure. They look pretty like classic liberals, don't they?

Because you, muricans, don't really know who leftists are. Your leftists are liberals, liberals never were left (maybe in 19 century). You are just propaganded as fuck

Because commies didn't care about retarded SJW bullshit like cultural appropriation, "preferred" pronouns, the "wage gap" or "manspreading". They also didn't bend over backwards for immigrants or threw themselves under the bus for them.

>Russia has such a sad history, will its people ever have a decent life?
Your mom has a sad history. Russia is doing fine and will dance on the graves of your cities.

Lenin and Trotsky were opportunists. They'd accepted money for revolution even from mother of hell and capitalism. It doesn't mean that they were puppets

this is the correct answer

Trust has nothing to do with it. The Bolsheviks were the only euroskeptic political party in 1917, which is why they got the 'mandate of heaven'.

This is the Soviet Union we all know and love

Welcome back Comrade!

>imported Western ideology
>Eurosceptic
Spengler and many Russians would disagree.

state-capitalism is such a broad definition. every country thats ever existed since 1900 can be described as state capitalist

Wrong. They cared equally for every country's culture in the union.
They emphasized on Russian culture in Russia, Ukrainian in Ukraine, Kazakh in Kazakhstan etc.
However, they thoroughly cutted off and censored any nationalistic ideas out of these.

They killed everyone who wasn't a pussy and showed enough resources to get your average chimps to join them for the gibsmedat

everyone who was a pussy*

You've had a bit too much krokodil today, Ivan

I did not meant they were puppets. I meant they were the puppeteers.

Lenin didn't care about the russian people. He wanted to bring international socialism to the world. Quote:
>"I don't care what becomes of Russia. To hell with it … All this is only the road to a World Revolution."

Stalin had a strong russian identity. He was not a international socialist, but a national communist.

By creating Ukrainian culture in Ukraine you are inherently throwing Russians under the bus because Ukraine was an integral part of Russia prior to bolshevism.

Right wing of CPSU was nationalist. Leftists like Trotsky were internationalist.
It was a civic nationalism but after WW2 it was infused with elements of Russian culture.
>cплoтилa нaвeки Beликaя Pycь

Even most soft of commies are against private property at least inheritance institution (planned economic was invented specially for Russia because we were agrarian piece of shit and market could do nothing with such situation - google NEP results). As I know your most known "leftists" are white rich pussies who scary about any real left movements because they can't really do anything except cry and swearing and would die in socialist state.

of course, they are the useful idiots that Yuri talks about.

they don't know what real communism, or socialism taken to its extreme.

they are in full destabilization mode, the outcome is meaningless in their case.

Stalin was a fanatic communist. But he was also a Russophile. His views were complex. In any case his rule was pretty far from what Marx or even Lenin imagined.

It wasn't always an exception. When you look at the ruling elites from the revolution up to Stalin's purges, they were almost exclusively pussies, kikes and faggots.

And going through the biggest conflict on earth tends to red-pill people on the virtues of masculinity.

liberals /= leftists

dumb Sup Forums fucks find this impossible to grasp

That's not true, Stalin was a Georgian nationalist before he joined the marxists.

communism is a brilliant ideology once you purge jewish interests, such as marx
yet it is still inferior to fascism

Didn't Soviets criminalize homosexuality? They were a lot different than the leftist weenies we have today.

do classical liberals even exist anymore?

they'd be closest to liberatrians

leftists love government and gov intervention, they can't be libertarians

Any ruler is a puppeteer. Or you really believe in Jesus-like rulers who just represent collective mind of their electors? At least Trotsky and Lenin really believed in their ideology (more than that - they were fanatics). That's why russian people allowed them to rule - there were only two opportunities - be ruled by ideological fanatics or be ruled by your ex-slaveholders (so to become slave again).

Communists in East are quite different from commies in West.
For example you can't say Tito wasn't a (civic) nationalist. Even "civic" was controversial since South Slavic identity was emphasized. Also shit like "schund tax", commies were socially rather conservative, and progressive elements stopped at being opposed to religion and empancipating women somewhat. But that religion was to be replaced by Marxism.

They criminalized homosexuality and practicing Judaism and Islam was prohibited.

Never change, Russia.

Useful idiots, socialists always rise up on troubled fags non-existant problems, then they discard them, cause socialist elites hate degeneracy the most. If not for planned economy, socialist countries and the soviet union would've prospered, it was basically Nazi Germany with even more government, which was too much for growth.

I agree


they aren't aware of the what they are involved in.

I'm not scared of a Commie takeover, that would kill 90% of the leftist trash, I'm scared of the soft authoritarianism thats already taking place with them at the helm.

>practicing Judaism and Islam was prohibited

>Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox (which had the largest number of followers), Catholic, and Baptist and various other Protestant denominations. The majority of the Muslims in the Soviet Union were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, practiced by a small number of believers, included Buddhism and Shamanism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Wikipedia says people could practice any religion, just not in public and their property was often arbitrarily appropriated and the believers were subject to persecution of many kinds.

There was also an attempt at harsh removal of religion as a whole but they realized that it would never work when they ran into the Orthodox Christians.

The type of niggas who bless their rifles and then gun down those that oppose the church.

Quality banter, those lads.

Anarchist are leftist for example. Anarcho-capitalsits just some local american joke - nobody from any other anarchist movements recognize them as anarchists.
Coommunist originally implied state as decentralized, democratic government - soviets. But this idea was purged by Trotsky and Lenin (Stalin later only finished it) and that was a moment when very large part of communist Internationale turned away from russian communists

fpbp

soviets were just like nazis

What killed USSR in it's infancy was dropping NEP.
If they allowed some private enterprise (like China), they would probably still be around.

Libertarian left asking for help from the authoritarian left to push left-wing ideology

Trotsky was the libertarian left of his time and he rightfully earned an ice pick for it.

Stalin. Later Soviets were authoritharian but far less totalitarian.
Stalin was worse than Nazis for that matter.

Nope. NEP was turned off because economical growth became slower and slower and then stopped. It was a good politic to restore economic after civil war but market - worst tool to make agrarian country industrial when there already many of industrial countries (e.g. all imperial reforms in this direction were failed what led us to disaster in WWI and really made revolution possible). NEP established only trade connections but nothing more. Also it was Moscow-centrist phenomenon so Moscow was only beneficiary from this politic when regions was under oppression both from communist para-military forces and moscowian capitalists.

It could've been modified perhaps. In any case USSR could've experimented after Stalin died. They failed to do so besides limited changes.
I still think it's collapse was mostly a political thing.

> The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a euroskeptic nationalist revolution.
Nope, it was revolution of useful idiots, overtaken by globalists from downing street and wall street.

First they thought they`ll kill the Saint emperor, because he implemented liberalization not fast enough and gave them not enough priviledges. Then they got cheated by their anglo benefactors and civil war started. They could win, if they`ll accept monarchism. People would support them then. But majority of them useful idiots played consitutional elitism to the end.

Blosheviks where just ISIS-1917. Military wing, that killed all educated people in Russia, so anglos could sell here their industrial and banking services and then sell their lend-lease shit.

USSR was as left (globalist colony) as it could be, first depriving Russians from power trough Korenization, then kicking all Russians out of party during Leningrad Affair in 1950`s. Using all the minorities to leach the nation`s wealth trough enforcing "Russians are privileged" memes and then using minorities to rule over Russian cities, over Russian enterprises, over Russian politics.

You think ukrainian being noviops and hating on Russians is a coincidence? Think again. It`s the part of their identity, just like it`s part of identity of any part of "fraternity of peoples".

>After NEP was instituted, agricultural production increased greatly. Instead of the government taking all agricultural surpluses with no compensation,[dubious – discuss] farmers now had the option to sell some of their produce, giving them a personal economic incentive to produce more grain. This incentive, coupled with the breakup of the quasi-feudal landed estates, surpassed pre-Revolution agricultural production. While the agricultural sector became increasingly reliant on small family farms, heavy industries, banks, and financial institutions remained owned and run by the state. This created an imbalance in the economy where the agricultural sector was growing much faster than heavy industry. To maintain their income, factories raised prices. Due to the rising cost of manufactured goods, peasants had to produce much more wheat to buy these consumer goods, which increased supply and thus lowered the price of these agricultural products.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#Disagreements_in_leadership

The only problem with NEP is that it didn't go far enough.

Stalin was far more effective in destroying Communism than the Nazis, yes that's correct.

Russia was poor. Lack of abundance made degeneracy less prevalent among leftists. Bolshevism was installed by WW1 survivors. They immiediatly went to another huge war (civil). Then famines and massive purges. Then surviving the war against Hitler. Whoever went through that was a hardcore motherfucker. Hence the spartan austere nature pf Soviet communism. Initially some revolutionaries advocated for polyamorius communes and gay rights but Lenin purged them as he introduced war communism to win the civil war.

Modern degenerate left is very much mental product of abundance in the modern west, like obesity epidemic.

Actually there were many attempts to reform soviet economic and make it more competitive where good workers could be rewarded for their work more than lazy and stupid. Last attempt was under Chernenko government and called Uskoreniye(literally acceleration). But it always led to some capitalist (in very bad mean) formations where little group of people (directors and accountants usually) grabbed all profit from those economic innovations so it was never successful. In 90s that practice was most obvious when all soviet economic were collapsed under market reforms for only 4 years.

Many kek were had in heaven.

I got you on this one senpai:

youtube.com/watch?v=-l53FPENoAU

Fuck off.

This is worse than the worst anti-communism.

Yeah, Stalin's Russia was basically China from 70-s to late 00-s. Educate youself about industrialization. From plow to atomic bomb in thirty years.

>Growth slackened after 1926. Once spare capacity in the economy had been taken up, the NEP did not maximise industrial development. There could be no communist future without industrialisation.
>There were problems within the economy, especially the ‘scissors crisis’. From 1923 until 1926 particularly, agricultural output increased faster than industrial output. A ‘goods famine’ meant the peasantry made large amounts of money but could not spend it. It was difficult to move this money into the development of heavy industry, as the government wished.
You forget very important thing - Russia was agrarian country and the main goal was to make it industrial with great urban population (only 15% lived in cities). It's impossible to build communism in agrarian coutry - that is the reason why all african socialist formations so cannibal-like puke.

If the government would relax regulations and allow private control of industry, then industry would grow on its own.

USA never had any five year plans or collectivization and we achieved the strongest industry on Earth.

...

Russians went through a fucking mass starvation where 90% of them were peasants with no chance of improving then through a bloody civil war then through Stalin

Russians have a sort of unspoken policy. No matter if the government is shit the motherland is to be defended from foreign invaders first and to be fair Stalin did reintroduce small parts of nationalism during ww2 even letting priests bless weapons and stuff. now by no means was stalin based he was definitely doing that to get loyalty but he wasnt really a leftist either stalins rule was less about the original international communism and more about "how much power can stalin have" and it was like that for most soviet leaders after stalin too to some extent.

also

this

They had huge amounts of growth, like 10% - 5% year over year until the late 60's.

Why do you guys just say shit?

There is your answer op.

Stalin was more right-wing than other left cucks.

i actually think the "autonomous union of republics" could be used as a solution to the Quebec problem (that is make Quebec an autonomous republic but still within a union)

And then no growth while inherent problems of planned economy became apparent.

...

The real reason is that standing up to global capitalism requires discipline.

Also see Lenin literally answer this question:

>old skool working class leftists are pussies
u know nothing, burger.

>libertarian left.
Explain how this is not a direct contradiction

USSR was "the best enemy money can buy".
Fine boogeyman, to trow strawmans in (((media))).

> gee we need to give this towelhead extrimists money and then take their lands > because communism boo! look at the parade! look at their education! (c)cnn
> oh noes, communists are taking over muh hollywood, lets ban them
> weee communist backlash, let`s regulate this shit and this shit > DMCA, Patriot Act, you name it
> NDAA? - fvcking commie obongo did this, we din du nuffin
> 1991 > what communists are end? > oh, that towelheads we funded had turned on us look, they totally blew up towers
> 2008-something > fvck nobody believes us about moderate ISIS > that`s it, "we go to war with iran and china!, because they are taking over oil in Iraq and Afghanistan" (c)trump
> canceling NDAA, cancelling patriot act, canceling DMCA, restraining secret services where they infringe with republic? > no guise, DA WALL!

> Undermine white competition. > Undermine white nations. > So your rotten shithole would still be on top with (((you))) in power. > White people die out? > dont give a fvck

If they`ll stop needing you in USA, they`ll give niggers and beaners AK`s and you know what follows. Korenization@usa.

>If they allowed some private enterprise (like China), they would probably still be around
didnt gorbachev want to do this and eventually allow US style elections making communism not longer be the one allowed ideology?

>Supports armed invasion of Islamic countries

No, they don't. The support right to self determination.

If you're thinking about Afghanistan they were invited by the Marxist government.

They're not. What you see is the so called intellectual ones. What you don't see is the blue collar types.

I see them often and they exude that bolshy attitude like crazy and overall, would probably kick their country's ass. They're ugly motherfuckers with no nice face to lose and muscly arms and legs that could pummel anyone to death easily.

Just try paying the cops or the army guys 20-30% less, see how quick they become leftists. If it happened to anyone else they'd just take it.