Yeah it's short. Lenin is snarky af which makes me laugh. He keeps on sneak dissing his ops. The theory is great of course too. State and Revolution, Imperialism and Left-Communism are must reads imo. For starters State and Revolution is cool though.

Crine

I just bought The Sims 4 to my girlfriend. She’s playing it right now. Capitalist propaganda at its finest.

yall still responding to luxury whip and still aint learn

Facts

You all better learn

Fidel Castro on Stalin

marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1992/06/03.htm

Q: Fidel, for most Latin American revolutionary leaders, the current crisis of socialism has a mastermind: Josef Stalin.

A: I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom.

In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible! I believe that the efforts of millions and millions of heroic people contributed to the USSR's development and to its relevant role in the world in favor of hundreds of millions of people.

I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.

I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.

I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.

(Pt. 2)

I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.

During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.

I feel that, far from gaining time, the nonaggression pact reduced time, because the war broke out anyway. Then, in my opinion, he made another big mistake, because when Poland was being attacked, he sent troops to occupy that territory, which was disputed because it had a Ukrainian or Russian population, I am not sure.

I also believe that the little war against Finland was another terrible mistake, from the standpoint of principles and international law.

Stalin made a series of mistakes that were criticized by a large part of the world, and which placed Communists - who were great friends of the USSR - in a very difficult position by having to support each one of those episodes.

Since we are discussing this topic, I must tell you that I have never discussed it with any journalist (or on any other occasion, he added).

The things I mentioned are against principles and doctrine; they are even contrary to political wisdom. Although it is true that there was a period of one year and nine months from September 1939 to June 1941 during which the USSR could have rearmed itself, Hitler was the one who got stronger.

If Hitler had declared war on the USSR in 1939, the destruction would have been less than the destruction caused in 1941, and he would have suffered the same fate as Napoleon Bonaparte. With the people's participation in an irregular war, the USSR would have defeated Hitler.

Finally, Stalin's character, his terrible distrust of everything, made him commit several other mistakes: one of them was falling in the trap of German intrigue and conducting a terrible, bloody purge of the armed forces and practically beheading the Soviet Army on the eve of war.

(Pt. 3)
Q: What do you believe were Stalin's merits?

A: He established unity in the Soviet Union. He consolidated what Lenin had begun: party unity. He gave the international revolutionary movement a new impetus. The USSR's industrialization was one of Stalin's wisest actions, and I believe it was a determining factor in the USSR's capacity to resist.

One of Stalin's - and the team that supported him - greatest merits was the plan to transfer the war industry and main strategic industries to Siberia and deep into Soviet territory.

I believe Stalin led the USSR well during the war. According to many generals, Zhukov and the most brilliant Soviet generals, Stalin played an important role in defending the USSR and in the war against Nazism. They all recognized it.

I think there should be an impartial a***ysis of Stalin. Blaming him for everything that happened would be historical simplism.

This character limit annoying af

Trying to learn more, book recommendations?

What are you looking for my friend

Basically an introduction(s) into Socialism.

Different and popular view points?

Then I recommend: An Introduction to Marxist Economics by Ernest Mandel.

Ernest Mandel was a Belgian economist who fought against the Nazi occupation. In this short book, he explains the fundamentals of how Marxists view capitalism and what their issues with it are. Easy to read and understand.

HTML version: marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/index.htm

PDF version: readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/Mandel-EconTheory.pdf

From the book's introduction: "This pamphlet, which was first published in French in 1964, provides a concise exposition of the elementary princples of Marxist economic theory. In the first section, Mandel elucidates the basic categories of Marx’s economic doctrine from the emergence of the social surplus product to the labour theory of value. In the second section, he explains the basic laws of motion of capitalism and its inherent contradictions. In the final second, he applies these to some of the new features exhibited by the new stage of imperialist capitalism that emerged after the second world war, which at the time he termed 'neo-capitalism' or 'late capitalism'."

I'm wondering

If America adopts more socialist policies, what's the likelihood all of our strongest businesses would move to another, less socialist country?

Like if we rly start cracking down on corruption can't the companies just set up in other places, in turn downgrading the American economy and compromising our ability to enact reforms

Man this just isn't how it works honestly. Billionaire flight is largely a myth

I think for american businesses they wouldn't rly have a reason to leave if we enact reforms and more socialist policies. There's still no better country to operate in esp. given cultural/language boundaries.

It's just an idea I had I didn't know theres a term for it

i say kick em out!

@spongebob

hit me with it (pause)

Curious, what are your personal thoughts on socialism/communism all that jazz?

@kollaps

I prefer some form of Socialism over communism but I still am unsure about when most self-proclaimed socialists are advocating for socialism, would communism still be the end goal? Because I mean I think people should be able to own land and make profit and have material things, it's just the fact that the imbalance with capitalism is so extreme in my view that you kinda gotta reach for the other side of things.

I also question, with capitalism, can it EVER be ethical, when it so often prioritizes profits and squeezes as much as you can out of labor for every cent possible over human well-being. Making this the priority--can it ever be ethical? I don't personally believe the answer is yes. That's why I'm hesitant to agree with someone who says it can be reformed, when its inherent values are problematic imo

In the same way that its not realistic to quickly transfer from one economic or political system to another, you gotta aim for the stars type s*** and you'll end up getting a lot of things you wanted along the way, albeit nothing is going to be perfect,

That's why I respect at least the theories of socialism and communism in a world where many places capitalism and commercialism dominates so much of human life it ends up preventing people from getting the necessities for relatively adequate survival.

I also believe that its the case with humans that even though they say they are for certain ideals, often the outcome becomes the opposite; like, your intentions may be good as far as you're concerned, but you're so intent on getting there that it begs the question if those sacrifices were worth the end goal.

And for those who don't have the same vision, those sacrifices will never be worth it to them, albeit they'd condone the same sacrifice for what they believe is right, until what they've been taught affects them much more directly in a negative way

I just think there are a lot of human flaws in any power structure that stain what socialism or communism could have been, but when capitalists bring this up, the authoritarian govts that may have championed these economic systems, they fail to recognize that capitalism and imperialism does similar things,

There are some other things at play that hinder what could be the virtues of any of these systems imo

Communism is the end goal of socialism

Got you,

So does it not make sense to a self-proclaimed socialist that they would want to remain in the middle state between capitalism and communism (even though sometimes it doesn't make sense to think things can function this way in any capacity)?

Like is there a big discrepancy between a communist and a socialist? or is socialist just a softer word for the greater public than with how the dialogue around communism has been handled

From my understanding you basically implement socialism in order to eventually achieve a communist state

Or is it more accurate to call one a socialist if they espouse communist ideals, and it's just the fact that full true communism has never been realized , so it may not be accurate to call oneself a communist because the transition hasnt been made

Word I respect that. I don't know where I lie yet. I have a pretty selfish perspective but I personally would like to see an outside nation (preferably a developing, struggling nation instead of an already rich one) succeed under a socialist state. I think American elections are actually gonna be very influential to this, since most socialist nations that had any significant power were done away with by the U.S. I think it's important that we elect officials that are going to be as isolationist as possible. We don't need troops all over the world ensuring we're getting our oil and opium delivered. The fight against communism has not only impacted modern Marxist's ability to create a long standing nation (or at least properly attempt to) but has also negatively impacted U.S. citizens themselves. All the way from poor people, minorities, and our own veterans. I'm getting a little off topic but the point remains, I'd rather see how an outside nation does it first, and probably visit it, before ever being comfortable with proposing real socialist reform here in America. And I'm talking way beyond Bernie. Like real socialism. I'd be totally fine with a person like Bernie in office at this point in time, with all the spending happening under Trump. It wouldn't even be a difference lmao.

I think you'd probably be considered a Democratic Socialist where as Synopsis is a Socialist who eventually wants Communism