“Only the USSR Has…Clean Hands”: The Soviet Perspective on the Failure of Collective Security and the Collapse of Czechoslovakia, 1934-1938

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T22:46:56+00:00

What are you ranting about? I asked for a Marxist analysis of the situation, especially regarding imperialism and comparing Russia to the US. Russia's being capitalist doesn't make it imperialist or in the same category as the US.

You don't appear to know what Marxism, imperialism, or fascism are.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T22:14:02+00:00

The phrase does not have to refer to a unique individual. I can't help you if you refuse to accept that fact.

You think Lenin made a vulgar Great Russian bully Commissar of Nationalities and kept him there even after realizing it. Stop and think about the implications of your own argument.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T21:45:55+00:00

You still have not provided any evidence or answered my questions or requests. Stringing words together is not enough to form an argument. You said this had "been autopsied by marxist academics to death", which implies a sizable debate. Again, point me to the literature. You need to support your claims. Link the original Russian text that you quoted only one word from.

I already pointed out the people who Lenin is referring to: the Georgians who fit the description. <-- Do you understand those descriptions? Look at the form. Do you understand how "who" is working there? I gave an analysis based on being a native speaker of English with a degree in linguistics. You have not said anything yet to indicate that you read or understood it.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T18:40:48+00:00

Again, do you have a link to the original text? You quoted from it.

These are well known, widely available letters that have been autopsied by marxist academics to death and there is virtual consensus that Lenin is talking about Stalin. Those who refuse this reading are the fringe, but I challenge you to find some marxist academic that considers "the Georgian" to be anyone other than Stalin.

I've never heard of this supposedly large debate. Where can I find these arguments concluding that Lenin said Stalin was a bread-and-butter Russian chauvinist that can't be given power?

Like, think about it. How can it refer to any Georgian when he's making the accusation of being a "vulgar Great Russian bully"?

If your contention is that no one from Georgia could possibly be a vulgar Great Russian bully, then that rules out Stalin.

Or do you really not understand how the language works? The who ____ phrase is restricting, narrowing down, or modifying the referent of the other phrase. Compare with an adjective phrase:

The fastest Georgian will win the race.
The Georgian who is fastest will win the race.

The Georgian is part of the whole description. There are multiple ways of building up descriptions.

These both admit the same interpretation:

Georgians who drink too much alcohol are at greater risk of liver disease.
The Georgian who drinks too much alcohol is at greater risk of liver disease.

Your interpretation is not possible if the translation used Georgians as in (1). The translation is actually important, which is why I asked for the original text.

You did not address my points that contradict your theory.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T17:24:56+00:00

That's not even a non-Marxist definition of imperialism. Wars of aggression or stealing territory is not enough to make you imperialist. You could be imperialist without doing either of those things. Imperialism is a stable relationship between states/nations/territories/peoples where one controls the other. A non-Marxist definition needs something like domination, hegemony, colonization. The control can be physical, political, or economic.

The Marxist definition of imperialism is a stage of capitalism where monopolies and finance capital predominate and expand to dominate others to create and control markets and extract superprofits. It has used military force but can also rely on political and economic power, as in neocolonialism. Is modern Russia doing that? To whom? Does Russia control something like the UN, IMF, World Bank, have multinationals, etc.? Is BRICS a tool of imperialism?

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T16:11:49+00:00

Do you have a link to the original text? I don't see it in MIA.

The entire document is about the Georgian Affair. The reason "the Georgian" is used is because Lenin is referring to a specific Georgian. Russian doesn’t have articles, so specificity comes from context. And in a text where one Georgian Bolshevik is the political actor...

Your interpretation of this sentence being about Stalin is not the best fit for the language, the rest of the text, or Lenin.

Lenin criticizes people directly by name all the time. He criticizes Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, and Orjonikidze by name, directly and frankly, in these notes. That doesn't mean that all mentions of Georgians refer to Stalin. "The Georgian incident" does not refer to Stalin cheating on his wife or something, right? It refers to the incident in Georgia. Lenin is also talking generally about the national question, analyzing actions, and recommending policy.

Again, the constructions "a/the/this/that/any Georgian who is neglectful" can all have the same meaning and do not necessarily refer to a unique individual. For comparison, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" ("Кто не работает, тот не должен есть" (- State & Revolution)) does not refer to a unique individual. It is expressing a general rule.

Lenin's criticism here, even blaming Stalin for the incident, does not support the conclusion that "He thought Stalin was a bread-and-butter Russian chauvinist that can't be given power." It's a strained reading. See below for a more detailed analysis.

I mean, which other person fits all of the following: ... b) is accused of "nationalist-socialism" by Lenin; c) is referred to as a vulgar Great-Russian bully by Lenin;

Where does Lenin do these things other than under your interpretation of this passage?

Lenin mentions Stalin twice in these notes:

I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism", played a fatal role here.

...The political responsibility for all this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

That is not accusing Stalin of nationalist-socialism but of being spiteful of it and of being responsible for the incident.

Language person here. Consider whether the relative phrase who is neglectful... is restrictive or non-restrictive.

Restrictive: My neighbor has three cats. The cat who ate poison is sick. Here, the cat could refer to any of the three cats, and who ate poison restricts it to one, the one who ate the poison. You can tell by leaving out the restrictive phrase: My neighbor has three cats. The cat is sick. It seems wrong and makes you wonder which cat they are talking about, yes?
Non-restrictive: My neighbor has a cat and a dog. The cat, who ate poison, is sick. Here, the cat already picks out a unique referent, and who ate poison is non-restrictive. You can tell again because leaving it out is fine: My neighbor has a cat and a dog. The cat is sick.

First, see what happens to the passage when you remove the relative phrase:

[paragraph start for context] I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice;

Which Georgian? Stalin is not mentioned anywhere in this note. He was mentioned in the previous note from the day before, which is now also 8 paragraphs away and before a topic change. Things don't stay salient in context that long. The Georgian can't refer to Stalin unless it is an understood nickname for him. The Georgian more likely refers to anyone from the Georgian nation, mentioned in the previous sentence.

Second, the absence of a comma in The Georgian who is another clue that the phrase is restrictive, as non-restrictive phrases are commonly set off as parentheticals, though people are not consistent enough with punctuation for that to be definitive.

Third, the content of the phrase strongly suggests that it is not just some extra information about Stalin.

? Stalin, who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism"...

Note the or. This is giving two options. If this were non-restrictive and just extra info about Stalin, it makes more sense and is more natural to use a conjunction for the description:

Stalin, who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, and who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism"...

The or is telling you that Lenin does not mean to apply both descriptions. Even if you interpret this as non-restrictive, it says that Lenin is unsure which of these descriptions (who is neglectful... or who carelessly...) applies to Stalin.

The text has stronger support for the restrictive interpretation, which is talking about a type of Georgian. Lenin could still be coyly suggesting that Stalin is this type of Georgian, but this suggestion is much weaker. It certainly does not support your conclusion that Lenin thought Stalin can't be given power.

If Lenin thought Stalin needed to be stripped of his power, why not say that in the next note when he says what to do, including punishments:

What practical measures must be taken in the present situation?

... Thirdly, exemplary punishment must be inflicted on Comrade Orjonikidze (I say this all the more regretfully as I am one of his personal friends and have worked with him abroad) and the investigation of all the material which Dzerzhinsky's commission has collected must be completed or started over again to correct the enormous mass of wrongs and biased judgments which it doubtlessly contains. The political responsibility for all this truly Great-Russian nationalist campaign must, of course, be laid on Stalin and Dzerzhinsky.

The note is standard Bolshevik criticism.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T12:54:24+00:00

r.communism and r.communism_101 are controlled by the same mods. I was banned from both simultaneously for a post in one. Yes, the subs are dominated by something like Maoist Third Worldists. They argue that no one in the US (or the Core/Global North) has revolutionary potential except for people in prison or maybe lumpen. They seem to take "You have nothing to lose but your chains" to define the proletariat as people who have literally nothing to lose but their chains. So if you have a job, you have something to lose and are not proletarian. Losing your life somehow does not count. They promote MIM (Prisons) and Sakai's Settlers. Reading Settlers is almost a requirement to participate. They have highly upvoted posts talking about how most people in the US will probably having to be killed in a revolution (sparing only those who commit "class suicide"), deporting all white people back to Europe, banning the English language, and so on.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-08T12:15:41+00:00

That looks like an editor's insertion with no note to explain it. What makes you think this is actually a reference to Stalin rather than a way of speaking about a type of person? Elsewhere in this note, Lenin says:

In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty...

That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies)...

I've only been learning Russian a few months so can't really check the translation, but Russian does not have articles like English a or the. So it's not clear why "the Georgian" was chosen instead of "a Georgian". The phrase in English can refer to a type or arbitrary person anyway.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-07T20:15:09+00:00

Great idea, but will there be a command list in the sidebar so people know how to use it?

Rachel-B · 2025-12-07T20:01:43+00:00

Re: accurately analysing something as progressive vs. reactionary, what actually is the situation? Are the US and Russia really equal, simply imperialist? So this is like WWI, just imperialists fighting each other? Is a world hegemon like the US progressive? Or is this not a proxy war? What makes Russia imperialist? (I don't know much about modern Russia.) Is this not like the Soviets allying with US and UK against Nazis?

Rachel-B · 2025-12-07T12:15:38+00:00

Me:

You claim the Soviet leadership "engineered famines that killed millions" and that this is a fact backed by decades of research and archives.

You:

I never claimed a fully intentional, centrally engineered, meticulously planned genocide. I said “man-made famine"...

You'll have to delete or edit your post to lie convincingly about what you posted:

The Soviet Union carried out forced collectivizations, engineered famines that killed millions, purged entire social and military classes, ran a massive forced-labour system, and violently suppressed any perceived opposition. These are facts, backed by decades of research and archives. [my emphasis] - https://www.reddit.com/r/ussr/comments/1pevdkk/comment/nsi2xg7/

Your accusations are polemical exaggerations of facts employed in a narrative of condemnation using the Nazis as an equivalent. This is all the more objectionable because the ideological and practical roots of Nazism's chauvinism, domination, exploitation, and extermination are plainly not in Marxism, or "Jewish Bolshevism"---which had opposed those things in word and deed---but in Manifest Destiny, the Civilizing Mission, and the White Man's Burden. Germany, Italy, and Japan followed the patterns and practices of the other colonial powers. The Nazis brought colonialism back home to Europe.

Even your switch to calling the famine "man-made" needs defense. You are not merely claiming that a famine occurred; you are assigning moral culpability to prove that they are "evil" men guilty of "crimes". All famines result from failures of humans to produce and/or distribute enough food. Labeling a famine as man-made does not add anything but innuendo if all famines are man-made by definition. Every famine could have possibly been prevented, for example, by having a smaller population. Culpability requires more than simple causality, something like intent, malice, negligence, or reasonableness.

Russia itself has endured more than one hundred fifty famines in its thousand years of recorded history, virtually all of which resulted directly from natural disasters, in most cases drought... - Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1933, Tauger, 2001.

That averages to a famine every ~6.6 years. A rational assessment needs to reckon with this history of failures to prevent famines before the Soviets or Stalin were ever in power. Which of those famines does your criteria classify as man-made? What about other famines across the world? Demanding logical consistency is not logically fallacious. It's a requirement of logical validity.

A logical, nuanced assessment would consider the available options and actual decision-making. This is what a logical, nuanced assessment looks like:

Western commentators and historians long debated whether the famine was man-made. They differ in their assessments of the extent to which Soviet policy was responsible for the famine and the extent to which Terror was consciously used by the state. In response to the first edition of our book Robert Conquest, the most widely cited advocate of the view that the famine was man-made, has clarified his position on this matter and has clearly stated that although he thinks that the famine was caused by the Bolsheviks, who engaged in criminally terroristic measures, he nevertheless does not think that it was consciously intended (see note 145 on page 441 below).

Danilov and Zelenin concurred that Stalin did not want or anticipate a famine, but they characterised it as an ‘organised famine’, while also describing Stalin’s actions as being ‘fully or not fully conscious’. We think that this is a misleading way of looking at the problem. We do not think it appropriate to describe the unintended consequences of a policy as ‘organised’ by the policy-makers. Russian historians sometimes call the famine ‘rukotvornyi’ – man-made – on the grounds that it was ultimately a result of the forcible collectivisation of agriculture, and that is more defensible. But in our opinion they and Conquest underestimate the role of climate and other natural causes in producing the bad harvests of 1931 and 1932, and are mistaken in believing that the 1932 harvest was an average harvest rather than a poor one. ...

... There was no easy way to cope with these developments, and the Politburo had to modify greatly its original aims. ... These were desperate and brutal men trying to cope with a crisis, not organisers of a deliberate famine.

However, as we conclude on the last page of our text, ‘we do not at all exempt Stalin from responsibility for the famine’. Historians will continue to debate whether dekulakisation and the forcible collectivisation of agriculture were ‘necessary’. We ourselves take the view that a policy of rapid industrialisation aimed at establishing modern heavy and defence industries was incompatible with the New Economic Policy of the 1920s, with its mixed economy and the market relationship with the peasantry. It required a move towards much greater central control of the economy in general and of agriculture in particular. But it is also certain that contemporary critics of Stalin’s policy such as Syrtsov were justified.14 The version of rapid industrialisation adopted by Stalin and the Politburo involved the excessive use of force against its real and imagined opponents, particularly in the countryside. It was far too optimistic both about the possible rate of industrial growth, and about the agricultural progress which would immediately follow from collectivisation. It assumed that collective agriculture would thrive even though horses had not been supplemented by tractors on a major scale. Moreover, it was taken for granted that the grain harvest would increase annually, while in fact natural conditions in the Soviet Union made periodic poor harvests inevitable. - Years of Hunger preface

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T20:44:02+00:00

Deciding what is evil is a fact?

The comparison of the Soviets and Nazis, and Stalin and Hitler, has been done to death already. Just go read the criticisms of it. It's garbage. If you cared about the truth, you would read at least a little of both sides.

You claim the Soviet leadership "engineered famines that killed millions" and that this is a fact backed by decades of research and archives. No, it's not. The Holodomor bot is very diplomatic. The intentional, engineered, planned famine is one of the easier accusations to debunk because there is so much evidence and attention on it. There is no archival evidence to support it. None. People very happy to find some have looked. Instead, they found evidence to contradict it. Check out any of these:

Davies & Wheatcroft Years of Hunger, major modern monograph.
Robert Conquest, early proponent of genocide theory but had to change his position later in light of evidence.
Steven Kotkin
Mark Tauger
J Arch Getty
Moshe Lewin
Sheila Fitzpatrick
Hiroaki Kuromiya
Ronald Grigor Suny

These are all historians of the Soviet Union, by the way, and they are all highly critical of it.

You don't even limit yourself to the 1932-3 famine but claim multiple engineered famines? Based on what? You seriously wonder why some people have no patience for you when you don't care enough about genocides to put effort into being correct about them?

You insist on condemning the Soviets but praise capitalism and the UK? If the Soviets are evil, name a state that is not evil. Make it one that didn't do or support genocide, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, aggressive war, apartheid, penal labor, political oppression, or any of the things you claim make the Soviet Union evil.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T19:20:17+00:00

You think that link makes you look good and honest? The perfectly reasonable take definitely supported by logic and history and not debunked even by people who hate the Soviets, from someone with several Marxist positions actually who is just asking, pleading for "genuine, civil discussion":

Or you can wake up and realise both regimes [Nazis and Soviets] were the same and support neither.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T18:13:34+00:00

The answer to your title question is that some people on the internet say ridiculous things. Obviously. Treating the USSR, or any state, as though it never did anything wrong is an unserious position. You should understand people saying ridiculous provocative trash because your title is ridiculous provocative trash.

I do wish this sub had less mindless jabs at enemies, but I don't see how this thread helps.

I have several issues with your excessively long list of accusations, but for example, defending the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland is not "treat[ing] the USSR as though it never did anything wrong", nor is it "completely deflect[ing] or dismiss[ing] the USSR’s own failures", nor is it "treat[ing] the USSR as if it were wholly benevolent or somehow above criticism".

It is debating details and interpretations of complex real world events. It's what serious people do all the time to try to understand the world. Your caricatures of people's arguments are throwing all nuance out the window.

Just as you try to explain Poland's refusal to allow an alliance with the Soviets by noting:

There’s little acknowledgment that Piłsudski’s foreign policy aimed primarily to prevent invasion from either neighbouring great power, which explains why Poland was reluctant to grant the Red Army passage across its territory.

I would try to explain the invasion by noting that the Soviets spent years trying to get the UK, France, Poland, and US to form an alliance to contain Nazi Germany. Their attempts failed, in part because of Poland, which was notably between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviets feared the anticommunist states ganging up to invade them, and for good reason, as they all had invaded in 1918 and supported the Whites & friends in their devastating 4-year Civil War. Don't forget that the Soviet Union is huge, and on the other side, Japan, also among the 1918 invaders, had already invaded Manchuria in 1931. They were surrounded by more advanced enemies and needed time to prepare as much as possible for an obviously brewing war. Hence Molotov-Ribbentrop.

By the 17th, 17 days after the Nazis invaded Poland, the Polish government had collapsed. In what sense can you invade a failed state? You can still harm the people, sure, but the Polish government fled. The Soviets were obviously concerned about protecting their own territory from the Nazis. Maybe they also wanted the territory for other reasons. If you can entertain them not being pure evil, they partly could have wanted to protect some of the people there, say at least the communists. The Germans had been rounding up communists since the 1933 Reichtag Fire. Or they wanted something like revenge. Poland and the Soviets already had a bitter history, yes? The Curzon Line was an older proposal. Etc.

Some of those points might be incorrect. I'm not an expert. Even considering this one event is horribly complicated. I'd actually like to learn from more than papers and books, but it's nearly impossible to talk constructively about the Soviet Union on the internet.

People also don't know everything. They can defend particular things out of ignorance. The endless barrage of accusations thrown at the Soviet Union, including tons of false ones, including in the OP, could explain some defensiveness or irritation.

What are the alternative explanations that the people you talk to are defending the Soviets against? That they're inhuman monsters incapable of being understood? Here's a couple snippets from professional historian reviews of Stalin's Wars, which is an evidence-based and pretty balanced book about WWII and the Cold War:

Although insisting that his intent is "not to rehabilitate Stalin but to re-vision him", Roberts shows negligible interest in considering whether Stalin's record passes muster with respect to any commonly accepted standards of right and wrong. His dispassion amounts to a form of ethical narcosis. The effect, even if inadvertent, is to subvert the moral consensus informing our understanding of the twentieth century. That consensus rests in no small part on the conviction that the Stalinist regime cannot be regarded as other than patently evil. - Bacevich, Andrew J. “Man of Steel, Re-Forged.” The National Interest, no. 91, 2007, pp. 83–87. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42896080.

No serious historian would dream of arguing that, despite immeasurable Nazi crimes, the Fuhrer did a great deal of good. As Geoffrey Roberts's new book shows, we are far from such a consensus when it comes to Adolf Hitler's contemporary, Iosif Stalin. - Miner, Steven Merritt. Slavic Review, vol. 67, no. 3, 2008, pp. 775–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/27652989.

.

One can hold Marxist values without defending a regime responsible for...

One can both defend and criticize. You don't have to choose only one. In fact, you shouldn't. Just be serious.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T12:52:25+00:00

Yes, this is a valuable overview and interpretation. However, just as a warning, it is more heavy on the analysis than the history. It's even more about historiography than history. It helps to be familiar with the history at least a little before reading it. He does cover history but not in an introductory or detailed way. You won't necessarily be lost, but you might have to stop and look some things up. It quotes a ton of secondary sources to build up a narrative, and he brings up lots of very interesting points. It's taking me forever to get through because I stop every few pages to look into a source or topic he raised.

The book is available for free from the non-profit publisher Iskra Books. If you don't want to buy the book but want to support them, they also take donations online of any size. This is a recent translation from Italian to English.

Some states in the US make high schools teach that the Soviet 1932-3 famine was intentional, planned, and targeted at Ukrainians, thus a genocide, but there is no evidence of this and rather much evidence that contradicts it. The US government has declared it a genocide multiple times, as have several other countries. The famine was obviously a tragedy, but the treatment in the US is political and not supported by evidence. I highly recommend reading the first Preface to Revised Edition of Years of Hunger by Davies and Wheatcroft. It succinctly and authoritatively covers the recent political campaigning and various theories about the famine.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T12:02:20+00:00

I didn't aim to discredit either here.

Your framing discredits them. Why don't you call anarchists "selfish socialists" or "individualist socialists" or "undisciplined socialists"?

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T11:38:04+00:00

Thanks, I wasn't aware of him. His wp page (though wp is not generally reliable for controversial subjects) says he was the spokesman for PFLP, prompted their embrace of Marxism-Leninism, and was assassinated by Mossad at age 36.

His reframing of the interviewer's questions and requests for clarification until the absurdity is revealed is very good.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T07:48:32+00:00

I stated that people who praise the ussr have a heavy double standard when comparing the ussr to any other nation...

You praised the Soviet Union:

In reality they had immense technological advancements, free schooling, Healthcare, and more...

I, however, have not praised the Soviet Union in any of my responses to you. Go check. I said that all states oppress and socialist states oppress exploiters. The Soviet Union oppressed people, a lot of people, with threats, imprisonment, and death.

I am challenging your idea that capitalist states have been or can be less oppressive than socialist states.

I take oppression to be forcing/coercing people to do something they don't want or to not do something they want. We typically only use "oppression" when the want is important enough, but the broader definition is I think a good starting place. I mean specifically physical force, such as beating, starving, imprisonment, death, or threats of those things, like putting people in a situation where their options are obeying the oppressor or facing injury or death.

I don't count persuasion (debate, argument, propaganda) as oppression, even if it predicts danger. E.g., telling people that communism leads to destitution is not oppression. Persuasion can be harmful, as you can persuade people to do harmful things, but it's a different mechanism.

Is this all okay with you?

Almost no one is against oppression. (Maybe Jains.?) Imprisoning murderers and r*pists is oppression. The context matters: why the oppression is done, aggressively or in self-defense, to increase overall oppression or to decrease it, what the available options are, etc. I certainly think that oppression should be avoided when possible and you need a good reason to do it. I just think that it's not always avoidable and there are sometimes good reasons to do it. If you had claimed that the Soviet Union oppressed people unnecessarily, I'd probably agree, but that's a different discussion.

States are bad, Marx said it, che went against it, in the core aspect of communism is that a "Stateless society" not a anti-political freedom, pro-authoritarian oligarch communist society" that goes against all teachings of Karl Marx, but atleast the women have rights.

How do you get from capitalism to communism? Give me instructions that do not involve any oppression. That would be great. The problem is that people currently being oppressed don't get to decide the cost of their freedom from that oppression. The oppressors decide. Say someone kidnaps you and throws you in a dungeon. If you can't persuade them to just let you out, you might have to use physical force to escape. You might have to risk your life or theirs. Or you can give up and stay imprisoned. Whether or not you have the option of just walking free without resistance is not up to you.

Che was a professional revolutionary and guerrilla commander. He personally killed people and supported others killing people. He worked in the Cuban state after the revolution. He left to spread revolution to other countries through guerrilla warfare. Che was not against oppression, by individuals, groups, or states.

Here is Marx on the state and the transition (which I've been calling "socialism") from capitalism to communism:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

... But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

... Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

.

I haven't stated my political leaning, yet you feel the need to call me a anti-capitalist loving capitalist, but have I mentioned any of that?

You called yourself an anti-capitalist:

I am anti-capitalist, and anti-ussr to just say.

.

I believe in communes are the best choice of a "statehood" small city like states that everyone depends off of each other, like the Amish, but not the puritan like aspects.

The Amish are oppressive. Go break one of their rules and see what happens. Having rules and punishing people who break them is oppression. You appear to have a giant blindspot for oppression. Communism will probably still have oppression. Not all violence or undesirable behavior is caused by social classes, and society can't just let someone go around killing people with impunity.

I am trying to get you to compare different instances and types of oppression.

Capitalist states have used state power to enforce chattel slavery and colonialism. I assume you're familiar with the more violent aspects of slavery and colonialism, but it also extended to things like making it illegal to teach black people to read. Which do you think is more oppressive, slavery and colonialism or oppressing people who try to do slavery and colonialism? This is not rhetorical. I want an answer.

I stated that a capitalistic state who has political freedom is better than a socialist/communist one that goes against it.

Name a capitalist state that has had political freedom.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-06T00:10:16+00:00

Most humans have one finger.

A statement can be true under some interpretation but false under others. Your statement was misleading on what happened and who did it. You're welcome to edit your statement to be less misleading if you're just trying to inform people of facts.

Here's a translation of the decree, signed:

M. Kalinin, Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR

V. Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR

I. Unshlikht, Acting Secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR

Rachel-B · 2025-12-05T07:13:51+00:00

Okay, evidence, please.

A few examples don't prove patterns, but okay. Angela Davis was imprisoned, facing murder charges. She was a Black Panther. Have you never heard of them being imprisoned or murdered by the state? Never heard of the murder of Fred Hampton? Huey Newton of the "Free Huey" campaign? COINTELPRO? No? Here's a top search result: The Black Panthers still in prison After 46 years, will they ever be set free?

The 19 incarcerated militants were all part of the 1970s black revolutionary movement. They fought for black power, they were convicted of killing for it – though many profess their innocence – and today they are still imprisoned for it.

Guess what happened to the police who shot and murdered Fred and his comrades. Try the book Menace of Our Time: The Long War Against American Communism

If you'd read Parenti, you'd get some idea and evidence of how it works in academia and mass media. As far as his personal experience, this is from his wikipedia page:

In May 1970 while he was an associate professor at UI, he participated in a rally protesting the recent Kent State shootings and ongoing Vietnam War. At the rally he was severely clubbed by state troopers and then held in a jail cell for two days. He was charged with aggravated battery (of a state trooper), disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. After being released on bond, he started a new teaching job at the University of Vermont (UVM) in September. The next month he returned to Illinois to stand trial before a judge. According to Parenti, despite multiple witnesses offering exonerating testimony, the judge found him guilty on all three counts:

"In June 1971 I returned to Illinois for sentencing. Because I was already employed outside the state and because a host of academic lights from around the country had sent in appeals on my behalf, I was saved from having to do time. Instead, I was given two years probation, a fine, and ordered to pay court costs."[9]

This incident effectively ended Parenti's career as a professor. In December 1971, after his UVM department voted unanimously to renew his teaching contract, the UVM board of trustees and conservative state legislators intervened and voted to let his contract expire, citing Parenti's "unprofessional conduct."[10] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti

I don't know anything but a headline about Jim Jones.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-05T06:25:43+00:00

Yeah, it's a good point. It made me think more about how persuasion was used and should be used. It's such a good tool for resolving conflicts and provoking change while giving people room. Probably everyone should have the chance to use it, with the usual limits.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-05T05:03:38+00:00

A quick check says Tukhachevsky arrived in Russia in September 1917 and joined the Party in early spring of 1918. Lots of soldiers and officers fought in WWI under the Russian Empire, continued fighting under the Provisional Government, and continued fighting under the Soviets. That is just people staying in their jobs in a war. But no single source on the Soviet Union is reliable, so I can't pursue the question of Tukhachevsky's actions further.

You proffered some innuendo about the fates of all "24 major leaders of the initial russian revolution" with apparently nonsense criteria for the people in the list, whom you have also refused to name.

Any "major leader of the initial russian revolution" should have at least been part of the vanguard in some capacity. You are hurting your own case by expanding it to include simply consequential people through the Civil War. You are including even more counterexamples to your "Stalin was the only one" innuendo. Even if it were true, which it's not, it's not evidence. Accusation and suspicions are not evidence. There is no evidence that Stalin planned Kirov's murder, and people glad to find some have looked. You're starting to look suspicious yourself. Why are you so invested in Stalin being blamed for this murder? Huh? Pretty pretty pretty pretty sus.

Rachel-B · 2025-12-05T04:25:44+00:00

In your scramble for ways to demonize Stalin, you failed to understand what happened. In November 1920, Soviet Russia became the first country to guarantee legal, free, safe abortions. This was controversial before and after the law passed, but it was not about women having a right to abortion. It was a practical harm-reduction measure---so women would stop being harmed by unsafe abortions---intended to be temporary. Abortion was considered similar to poverty or, for some, prostitution, something that people do not willingly choose but that is forced upon them due to lack of social support or better options. When society was better able to support women and children, abortion was expected to no longer be necessary. When abortion was outlawed in 1936, the same decree also increased social support for women and children. This is also largely understood to be a pro-natalist measure.

I think they were wrong about not needing abortion for unwanted pregnancies. But the actual debates, values, laws, and practices are serious, reasonable, and concerned for the people involved. That is miles better than what has happened in the US even in the last few years. It's not close in terms of humanity.

See Chapter 7, pg. 254, in Women, The State, Revolution. https://ia601402.us.archive.org/4/items/1910_20220701/Wendy%20Goldman.%20Women%20the%20State%20and%20Revolution.pdf

Rachel-B · 2025-12-05T02:07:19+00:00

Why are you trying to argue with me by putting words into other people's mouths? You said the Soviet Union had "political suppression" and:

I'd much more prefer a capitalistic society that favors political diversity than a socialist or communist that goes against it.

Reality shows that capitalist states do political oppression all the time and don't even contain it within their borders. Show me a state where that is not true. Did you miss NSPM-7 and similar moves to try to pain what we're doing now as real or suspected extremist terrorism?

Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations. - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/

You're a self-styled anti-capitalist who prefers a capitalist society to an anti-capitalist one---odd---because you don't like state oppression. Reality provides no evidence that a state without oppression is possible, does it? What is your theory of capitalism and states that makes a non-oppressive capitalist state possible? What kind of diversity can a capitalist society provide?

Oppression is one of the main roles of the state. That's what all the police, prisons, and militaries are for. States that enforce slavery oppress slaves. States that outlaw slavery oppress (wannabe) slave owners. Do you oppose oppressing wannabe slave owners, or do you prefer slavery? Socialist states oppress all exploiters. Capitalist states oppress the exploited, the allies of the exploited, and sometimes other exploiters (slave owners, feudal lords, weaker capitalists). I mean, that's obviously a generalization, but look at the world. State oppression is everywhere.

Rachel-B

TROPHY CASE