I always wonder what the political left would look like in different European countries in the 20th century had it not been for the influence of the Soviet Union. Soviet influence ran, in my humble opinion, like poison through the veins of European socialist organisations. It seems to me like successful left wing mobilization is directly correlated with a relative lack of Soviet influence.
Yeah. They executed a lot of leftist thinking and set back progress for decades. And inadvertently were the reason for the red scare still deeply ingrained in many
Even ignoring the executions, they set the party agenda for a lot of European communist parties, struck down independent local organization (which were more in line with traditional communitarian ideas), and made the political left wing something that could more legitimately be written off as a foreign influence rather than a legitimate political movement because to an uncanny degree, that was just what it was.
This reflects my impression in countries like France - in Spain they of course took it to another level.
Stalin was also partially to blame for the rise (and, to give him his due, fall) of Hitler. The recalcitrance of the Communist party in Weimar Germany was a big part of what prevented a left coalition from being able to take power and cut the Nazis off at the root.
To be fair, in the German context the conservatives were also terrified of the socialist democrat party, who were relatively moderate and if I remember correctly did not have too close ties with Soviet. Hindenburg made the fatal mistake of being more afraid of moderate socialists than of radical fascists.
I also wouldn’t give Stalin too much credit for defeating Hitler. The Soviet Union only turned on Germany when they were invaded, and Stalin’s military strategy was ruthless and incredibly inefficient. When the Red Army freed Europe I’d argue it was in spite of Stalin rather than because of him.
Maybe I’m looking at history with a view to avoid giving Stalin credit for anything, but turning on a fascist country only when they invade you does not impress me much, and ordering your soldiers to march into a meat grinder without weapons is not an efficient military strategy.
Most people nowadays also seem to buy into the idea that anarchists worship chaos and destruction. I’m not sure exactly where that idea comes from, but it’s certainly convenient.
It’s been propagated by the detractors of anarchism. The same defamation was used towards the republic when monarchies where the rule rather than exception. People often equated the concept of a republic with chaos and disorder, just like they now do with anarchism.
You mean the coup, revisionist, governments of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the following reactionary anti-communists that destroyed the USSR were actually bad for leftism? Color me shocked.
Even “tankies” would agree that all the anti-communism, anti-Stalinism and anti-Leninism of the USSR after Stalin really fucked communism and leftism all over the world.
Or do you think “tankies” think the USSR after Stalin was “based”? What even is this take?
What even is this indeed. I was talking about the influence of the Comintern, through which the Soviet Union set the agenda of socialist parties all over Europe.
The Comintern ended in '43, but there’s a broken part of the European left that never stopped sucking up to Russia. These days they’re thankfully just a bunch of weirdos that nobody really gives a shit about, but back in the 30s this stuff mattered.
Your point being the USSR was influential because it was… what evil?
Doesn’t it make sense they were influential because they were like the only socialist state at the time? And they actually did support many, if not most, anti-colonial and leftist movements all over the world. Like, if you were a leftist in Africa, and needed help fighting against colonialism and stuff, there was only the USSR around to help you. And they did help, a lot.
They had the largest increase in quality of life in history prior to China, they pioneered space exploration and computation. They had the most advanced laws to protect minorities, to guarantee equality for women etc. Their universities were free for people on the 2nd AND 3rd world to attend.
How exactly were they so terrible? And please, don’t list things every country did exactly the same or worse.
Or do you think all the good they did is completely nullified by the bad?
Would it be best for humans to stop trying to do good, never try to learn from the bad, and just give up?
It’s a great read and gives a lot of insights into the dynamics I’m describing. The infighting between leftist fractions gets pretty technical, but Orwell does a great job with it.
Orwell is a piece of shit traitor who worked for the UK government to fight communists. AND he was a racist piece of shit. I will never read any books by him, thanks.
I refuse to read explicit anti-communists who worked for fascists states outing communists and disrupting their parties.
Uhum uhum, it’s been “bad”. Like it’s only been one of the best countries in history, if you like, actually materially analyse human history and stuff.
Do people like you think what, Sweden is a good country? Or there has been 0 good attempts at social organization in human history, and we better just kill ourselves and give up?
Or rather, my personal position is that indeed the USSR sucked (likely in different ways than you think), and it was still one the best nations ever. We should learn from what it did right, but also what it did wrong.
‘Tankies’ (for the lack of a better word) have been against communism throughout history. It’s disingenuous to assume they could be capable of unity
I always wonder what the political left would look like in different European countries in the 20th century had it not been for the influence of the Soviet Union. Soviet influence ran, in my humble opinion, like poison through the veins of European socialist organisations. It seems to me like successful left wing mobilization is directly correlated with a relative lack of Soviet influence.
Yeah. They executed a lot of leftist thinking and set back progress for decades. And inadvertently were the reason for the red scare still deeply ingrained in many
Even ignoring the executions, they set the party agenda for a lot of European communist parties, struck down independent local organization (which were more in line with traditional communitarian ideas), and made the political left wing something that could more legitimately be written off as a foreign influence rather than a legitimate political movement because to an uncanny degree, that was just what it was.
This reflects my impression in countries like France - in Spain they of course took it to another level.
Stalin was also partially to blame for the rise (and, to give him his due, fall) of Hitler. The recalcitrance of the Communist party in Weimar Germany was a big part of what prevented a left coalition from being able to take power and cut the Nazis off at the root.
To be fair, in the German context the conservatives were also terrified of the socialist democrat party, who were relatively moderate and if I remember correctly did not have too close ties with Soviet. Hindenburg made the fatal mistake of being more afraid of moderate socialists than of radical fascists.
I also wouldn’t give Stalin too much credit for defeating Hitler. The Soviet Union only turned on Germany when they were invaded, and Stalin’s military strategy was ruthless and incredibly inefficient. When the Red Army freed Europe I’d argue it was in spite of Stalin rather than because of him.
Maybe I’m looking at history with a view to avoid giving Stalin credit for anything, but turning on a fascist country only when they invade you does not impress me much, and ordering your soldiers to march into a meat grinder without weapons is not an efficient military strategy.
Many anarchists were simply murdered:
that is the reason why there is no anarchist movement in europe today. Before these events Anarchists were a major part of the workers movement.
Most people nowadays also seem to buy into the idea that anarchists worship chaos and destruction. I’m not sure exactly where that idea comes from, but it’s certainly convenient.
It’s been propagated by the detractors of anarchism. The same defamation was used towards the republic when monarchies where the rule rather than exception. People often equated the concept of a republic with chaos and disorder, just like they now do with anarchism.
You mean the coup, revisionist, governments of Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the following reactionary anti-communists that destroyed the USSR were actually bad for leftism? Color me shocked.
Even “tankies” would agree that all the anti-communism, anti-Stalinism and anti-Leninism of the USSR after Stalin really fucked communism and leftism all over the world.
Or do you think “tankies” think the USSR after Stalin was “based”? What even is this take?
What even is this indeed. I was talking about the influence of the Comintern, through which the Soviet Union set the agenda of socialist parties all over Europe.
The Comintern ended in '43, but there’s a broken part of the European left that never stopped sucking up to Russia. These days they’re thankfully just a bunch of weirdos that nobody really gives a shit about, but back in the 30s this stuff mattered.
Your point being the USSR was influential because it was… what evil?
Doesn’t it make sense they were influential because they were like the only socialist state at the time? And they actually did support many, if not most, anti-colonial and leftist movements all over the world. Like, if you were a leftist in Africa, and needed help fighting against colonialism and stuff, there was only the USSR around to help you. And they did help, a lot.
They had the largest increase in quality of life in history prior to China, they pioneered space exploration and computation. They had the most advanced laws to protect minorities, to guarantee equality for women etc. Their universities were free for people on the 2nd AND 3rd world to attend.
How exactly were they so terrible? And please, don’t list things every country did exactly the same or worse.
Or do you think all the good they did is completely nullified by the bad?
Would it be best for humans to stop trying to do good, never try to learn from the bad, and just give up?
I recommend reading Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia!
It’s a great read and gives a lot of insights into the dynamics I’m describing. The infighting between leftist fractions gets pretty technical, but Orwell does a great job with it.
Orwell is a piece of shit traitor who worked for the UK government to fight communists. AND he was a racist piece of shit. I will never read any books by him, thanks.
I refuse to read explicit anti-communists who worked for fascists states outing communists and disrupting their parties.
Chef’s kiss
@novibe @sab
Orwell fought in Spain against Franco. You have some odd definitions of “Anti_Communist.”
He hated Stalin? So did everyone who could read and write.
Orwell is pretty much universally hated by authoritarians on both sides of the political spectrum.
He’s a personal hero of mine for many reasons, but that’s certainly one of them.
Sure, but then don’t read anything about what he did right after that!
The USSR has been bad since the USSR existed
Uhum uhum, it’s been “bad”. Like it’s only been one of the best countries in history, if you like, actually materially analyse human history and stuff.
Do people like you think what, Sweden is a good country? Or there has been 0 good attempts at social organization in human history, and we better just kill ourselves and give up?
Or rather, my personal position is that indeed the USSR sucked (likely in different ways than you think), and it was still one the best nations ever. We should learn from what it did right, but also what it did wrong.
Brother u on some liberalism
Brother YOU are on some liberalism lmao what are you talking about?
anarchism is when people are doing kinda sorta okay sometimes please ignore the genocides
Just call em authoritarians. That’s what they are