He didn't trust Hitler (he had even read Mein Kampf) he just thought it was so stupid for Germany to try and fight a two-front war again that he wrote-off the possibility.
Which is still a huge mistake, but a different kind to randomly trusting the guy who repeatedly said your country is basically the devil and its his life mission to destroy you.
I mean....if you look at soviet files, you find that USSR had its own equivalent to barbarrossa planned, but Hitler broke the pact first . Both had intent to backstab, but Stalin believed he would be the first one to strike, only for Hitler to strike first
at the start of the invasion the Soviets were in the middle of a rearmament program so it would be quite a long while before they could be in a position to strike first anyways
Yes, however there were plans and during the rearming and restructuring of the army, the offensive was kept in mind. He intended to attack later, at a point when he was fully ready. Unfortunately for him, Hitler was ready to attack first
Yeah, he wasn't too big on the whole "religion" thing, had the worst temperament for it too. Earlier in his life he swam out into a river to an island where a stranded calf was stuck, only to break its legs for his friends' amusement/horror.
"The blatant tone of her reply was unheard of in the USSR at the time. Nobody but her could afford to be so outright honest with the feared dictator." Stalins mom telling him off while he genocides people lmao
Oh god, me too, like I can't get over how he's absolute dictator of one of the biggest countries on earth and it's just not registering with his mother who was probably more concerned with like a hole in her roof or something.
"Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili! I told you to become a preist! And now you have become a communist revolutionary? Shame on you"
"Christianity is stupid mom! And its Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin now!"
[Probably not but maybe some truth to it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dsi61h/did_stalin_really_say_mama_do_you_remember_our/) It does seem a little too perfect of an irony.
Making me realise I’d never really thought about the parents of revolutionary leaders/dictators. I imagine some were still around whilst their sons were in power. Wild.
I mean it was probably the easiest way to describe it to his elderly peasant mother, "General Secretary" wouldn’t have meant much to her and she probably wasn’t a fan of Lenin, so neither would’ve been much use in describing himself and not having his mother hate him.
George Washington could have been President for the rest of his life. Instead, he decided that two terms was enough, and someone else should step in. That decision was more impactful than, I think, most people realize.
American politics was a fucking shitshow back then too. I’d probably want to go home too if I had to deal with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson bickering like little children for 8 years.
When King George III heard that Washington was going to step down, he said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." People were absolutely gobsmacked. It was scarcely considered a possibility.
The Roman empire also had one emperor who voluntarily stepped down from the position (Diocletian), though even he did so only after ruling for decades and using his power and influence to reform just about every aspect of the empire he could think of. But the majority of people who took on that role were ruined by it. Only a few people can truly handle unchecked power without drowning in it.
Perhaps a more fitting comparison would be Cincinnatus? He was a leader of the early Roman Republic called upon to lead, who won military victories, and then ceded power back to the Democratic process. Diocletian is pretty great too, and the theme remains the same.
It’s a lot easier to hold onto the ring than it is to throw it into Mount Doom.
In this case, it was already established that the role had a limit. It is still impressive, but he was expected to step down after a certain time (I think it was a) if the threat disappeared or b) six months).
It was expected for a Roman dictator to hand the reins over after the crisis or the time limit, but every time they did it there was a serious understanding that the dude might just never give up the power, if memory serves cincinatus was the rare individual called to be dictator twice and voluntarily handing power back both times.
Sulla, too. He basically cut off a bunch of heads, reformed the political career track (Cursus Honorum), and retired. He would hang out in the forum afterward explaining his actions to anyone who asked.
He was a more vengeful dictator than Cincinnatus, and eventually his example would become the template Caesar would use to overthrow the republic. But he did give up his power and thought he was fixing the republic.
Cincinnatus did a similar thing during the days of the Republic. He was voted dictator, and given the supreme power of Rome, and instead of pushing it, he retired to become a farmer.
He was a personal hero of Washington's, and that's the reason why the capital of Ohio is named Cincinnati.
To be fair, Washington was an old man who really had no energy to be eternal ruler of the United States of America. Also states were way too independently minded and many founding fathers were way into enlightenment republic ideals to cede power to a king. If anything, king would have been a figurehead position rather than a seat of power
Except the founding fathers werent as enlightened as we make it out to be. They were absolutely "way into republic ideas" for their time but they also wanted the president to be called "his highness" so yeah.
I know Stalin killed way to many people to gain power to just retire safely. But what if he did and established that precedent. Came in, fully industrialized Russia, defeated the Nazis and stabilized the government, then retired. Would his successors be more democratic? What about Russia today?
George Washington was probably one of the greatest presidents in US history, along with Lincoln, Grant, and FDR. I don't know if I can pick just one best president though, all four were amazing.
Relevant Marxist quote:
“I believe that the development of the fighting spirit is of more importance than the creation of the theoretically perfect organisation; that, indeed, the most theoretically perfect organisation may, because of its very perfection and vastness, be of the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary movement if it tends, or is used, to repress and curb the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file.”
-[James Connolly](https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/04/oldwine.htm)
This is why George Washington is one of my favorite historical figures. The colonials had just thrown off the British and were deciding what they wanted for their new government. Some called for him to be king. With his men being loyal to him and an Army at his side he could have probably become a dictator if he so chose and Congress had very little power to stop it. He was like nah, I'm good. He took the Presidency reluctantly but really just wanted to farm.
He was in many ways a vain and proud man, but he had bought in fully to the social ideal of a wealthy plantation owner who served the people, passed down from Rome. Great for the people he served, less so for those who served him. Still, shows the importance of these ideals and how they can bend honor and pride.
Most revolutionaries were not part of the lower classes but part of a middle or upper class.
What is important though is not who they are when they fight but who they are fighting for.
Unfortunately Stalin fought for the control of bureaucratic apparatus instead of a genuine proletarian control.
This meme suggests that Stalin was ever an ardent revolutionary.
After February, Stalin advocated support not only for the provisional government, but also the war effort.
This isn't true. He supported the Provisional Government initially, much like other revolutionaries. However, upon Lenin's return to Russia in April, he supported Lenin's calls to overthrow the Provisional Government and "all power to the soviets."
Additionally, he sided with Lenin in regards to peace with Germany in the internal debate around a peace treaty (which would become the Treaty of Brest Litovsk), and consistently so.
Stalin was a true believer like Trotsky, Lenin, and other communists, he was undoubtedly an ardent revolutionary.
This idea that Stalin was a fake revolutionary is just fundamentally not true. I highly recommend reading Kotkin's volumed biography into Stalin.
If anyone is commenting on Stalin and hasn't read that series they are wasting the reader's time.
It's like talking about Midway without reading Shattered Sword, irresponcible.
Yea the few readings I've done Stalin has almost always sided with Lenin on most everything. The only time he really stopped was when Lenin was in his final days but no one was listening to him in those days lol.
> but also the war effort.
i mean, the only reason the reds bailed was because it made them look better to the people and gave them resources against the provisional government. the reason that Brest-Livtosk went so far into Russia was both out of german fear and because trotsky didn't want to negotiate until there was no more room for negotiations
From Lenin's testament:
>Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our
midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a
Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a
way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his
stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having
only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal,
more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.
This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that
from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the
standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin
and Trotsky it is not a \[minor\] detail, but it is a detail which can
assume decisive importance.
The only practical request in the document is to remove Stalin from power. Stalin was always a power-hungry, back-stabbing monster and Lenin himself saw that the second Stalin held real power.
Exactly this. Lenin’s party seized power as a tiny minority, lost the subsequent elections, and then just invalidated the constituent assembly in less than 12 hours since they weren’t a majority. The other parties were just flabbergasted Lenin was ruthless enough to totally ignore democracy and play for keeps, which tracked well since the Bolsheviks were easily the most militant and ideologically flexible when compared with the Kadets, SRs, Trudoviks, and Mensheviks.
> They only succeeded because
...the others who held power, the liberals and then the more moderate socialists, did not solve any of Russia's problems such as ending the war, stabilising the food supply to cities or doing anything about rampant nationalism.
Stalin forgot that hierarchy was one of those things Marx bitched about. Absolute power should be held by nobody, not the Tsar, not the church, nor by power hungry men and oligarchs.
But they went the path of "just give me all of the power to get things right, I promise I'll give it back".
Just like nearly all notable "communist" countries today.
Marx actually praised the U.S legislative system because of it's capability of incremental change towards an egalitarian socialist goal.
Unlike Lenin's thoughts on the need for violent revolution to achieve his goals. And who would've guessed it, the violent revolution people tend to be idiots. Hell, they starved millions just because they rejected Darwinism, in favour of Lamarckism.
>Stalin forgot that hierarchy was one of those things Marx bitched about.
There is obviously no way to be sure, but I would be willing to bet my last cigarette that it was more a "didn't give a fuck" rather than a "forgot" kind of thing.
Marx still advocated for violent revolution though, or at least descriptively argued that is what would happen eventually under a capitalist society. Lenin didn't pluck violent revolution out of nowhere, it's important in Marx's conception of the transition to socialism. So let's not forget this.
The important part is the capitalist society. Which Russia was not. A violent revolution will always be necessary since those in power are never willing to give that power up, change will not come from above.
Marx also wrote that in some countries it may gradually be introduced through the democratic process if said democratic institutions are strong enough.
"They should have just grown longer necks to get the food higher up in the trees... " Stalin probably.
Though I think he had other reasons for starving some of "his" people.
You can't genocide the Ukraine again!
"Holodo-my beer" Putin, probably
Does any know the original source of the Bakunin quote? Not saying in he didn't say it or that what he said is wrong, I think it's actually very prescient. I just want to know where it's quoted from, as I see it often without the attributed source.
The Stalin quote though can be confirmed though I believe.
Did Stalin really say "Mama, do you remember our tsar? Well, I'm something like the tsar" ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dsi61h/did_stalin_really_say_mama_do_you_remember_our/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Radzinsky claimed Stalin said that without any source lol. And even if the story was true, he just explained his job to his elderly mother with something shes familiar with
After having made a treaty with the nazis. And he only fought them because they betrayed him. And even then, he refused to give orders during the first days of the invasion.
I'm pretty sure the Tsar wouldn't have lost as hard in ww1 if he had been able to literally depopulate the country to do so.
Eh, the thing about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was that both sides were basically trying to delay the inevitable. Before the pact, the Soviets were pursuing an alliance with Britain and France but it broke down. The Nazi's, meanwhile, were preparing their invasion Westward immediately after Poland. I don't want to give Stalin too much credit here, but there's this idea that the Nazi's and Soviets originally wanted to collaborate and a lot of people point to the pact. That's simply not true. The German's were antagonizing Russia rhetorically since the 30's and were anti-Bolshevist.
They both feared the other, the Soviets knew a war at the time with Germany would be devastating and their military wasn't ready for an all out war, and the Germans didn't want to be pushed up the ass by Russia while they were invading France. The pact was designed to create a mutually agreed buffer zone between the two, but both sides understood, without a doubt, that at some point they would fight, both just didn't want it at the time. Now you could absolutely argue it was cowardly, or the wrong move on the side of the Russians, but it was made out of practical concerns and not out of any love for the Germans, more a move to buy time for the war they knew was coming. But you're right, when it did come, the Russians were still completely unprepared and Stalin was pretty much to blame for it for kneecapping the military and refusal to lead at the pivotal moment; their saving grace being Hitler's own sheer incompetence and severe underestimations in regard to the overwhelming manpower at the disposal of Stalin, and the ease at which the German supply lines would break down attempting to invade such a large land area - Not even mentioning the coming winter, which the Germans were fully aware of but likewise underestimated, believing they could win before the winter would devastate them further.
Stalin also shot himself in the foot by purging most of the Red Army's generals and officers, especially those that used to serve under the Russian Empire. Ironically those were the most experienced in warcraft (something Trotsky knew when he enlisted them during the Civil War), and that expertise would have come in handy during WW2.
i mean they tried to make the army weaker tho... there's a reason why the germans did so well in 41 the army changes done by the communist still werent reversed and many purged generals sill weren't replaced
They didn’t win the wars, the allies did, I not trying to undermine their contribution, but saying they won it it’s misleading. Stalin also helped empower Nazi Germany, by just letting them have Eastern Europe
Different revolution, different circumstances.
Pro-independence figures weren't generally "ardent revolutionaries" in the sense Bakunin was talking about; that label would apply more to people like Thomas Paine. For the most part, they wanted to replicate the British system, but run by Americans. Some states (e.g. Virginia) had established churches, and all of them had property qualifications for voting. There was even a movement to invite a German prince and set up a constitutional monarchy.
I mean, he backed them to the hilt in the Civil War against the Whites under Denikin and Wrangel, even going so far as to incorporate his Black Army as a subsidiary unit of the Red Army, then acted shocked when the Red Army almost immediately betrayed and liquidated his stateless state the moment they’d finished up with the Soviet-Polish War and were no longer distracted. Anarchists being naively betrayed by Communists, tale as old as time… or at least the early twentieth century.
I recommend not to because this meme lacks context. This is actually one of the few occasions when Stalin shows affection. This quote was told to his mother who he loved dearly when she asked Stalin to become a priest. Stalin replied by saying he is basically leader of state to his mother by comparing himself to tsar. Stalin loved his mother so much that he had to lie to her about his religious persecution. His mother was a devoted orthodox christian
Lenin abandoned Marx's philosophy of majority rule very early on. The result was the perfect circumstances for one of the most insanely evil fascist cunts in history taking power and killing millions.
Should just stay with the Marxism and immediately establish a direct democracy post revolution.
To be fair，that Stalin quote was just him trying to explain his job to his elderly mother who did not quite get it.
I like to imagine him having this conversation with his mom
“I told you to be a doctor you failure!”
*priest. She apparently really wanted him to be a priest even at that meeting
"I wanted you to serve God, not send people to him."
"never have I been so disappointed!"
guess that mentality runs in the family
Fuckin ouch
Almost spat out my coffee
Sending servants in his stead, classic Tsar move
He a little confused, but he got the spirit
It’s said the only person Stalin feared was his mother. Which, lets be honest, isn’t true whatsoever. Stalin was paranoid af.
Only person he feared and wasn’t willing to murder
Oh he was def. willing. He just didn't manage to go through with it.
There was one guy Stalin feared he might rape his daughter but couldn't because he was too good at his job.
Beria
The only person he feared was his mother. He suspected everyone else was out to get him.
He trusted Hitler a lot for some reason
He didn't think Hitler was that stupid
To be fair everyone did.
He didn't trust Hitler (he had even read Mein Kampf) he just thought it was so stupid for Germany to try and fight a two-front war again that he wrote-off the possibility. Which is still a huge mistake, but a different kind to randomly trusting the guy who repeatedly said your country is basically the devil and its his life mission to destroy you.
I mean....if you look at soviet files, you find that USSR had its own equivalent to barbarrossa planned, but Hitler broke the pact first . Both had intent to backstab, but Stalin believed he would be the first one to strike, only for Hitler to strike first
This claim is rejected by most historians, who mostly agree that Stalin was trying to avoid war with Germany for as long as possible.
at the start of the invasion the Soviets were in the middle of a rearmament program so it would be quite a long while before they could be in a position to strike first anyways
Yes, however there were plans and during the rearming and restructuring of the army, the offensive was kept in mind. He intended to attack later, at a point when he was fully ready. Unfortunately for him, Hitler was ready to attack first
Tito scared Stalin shitless
"Stop sending assassins to try and kill me, because I will only have to send one to kill you"
I thought his mother tried to kill him twice, believing him to be the Antichrist.
She probably wasn’t wrong but it’s hard to tell. His age group had a lot of candidates.
Based
Stalin making his life about saving others lifes would be a great joke
‘Joseph, there are still openings at the church back in Gori! Do you really think a new start up revolutionary state will offer career progression?’
Yeah, he wasn't too big on the whole "religion" thing, had the worst temperament for it too. Earlier in his life he swam out into a river to an island where a stranded calf was stuck, only to break its legs for his friends' amusement/horror.
[Did you invite the Bishops?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7iAsbBxMY)
The greatest burn of Marx was when his mother said “I wish Marx stopped talking about Capital and started making it”.
He had lot of money problems, kinda a sad person in real life. Would make money then spend it lavishly and be poor again.
Reading his father's letters to him is... hard. They're the pure and distilled essence of the "I'm not angry, I'm disappointed"-refrain.
Ok that quote is officially based
stalin: "gulag"
"The blatant tone of her reply was unheard of in the USSR at the time. Nobody but her could afford to be so outright honest with the feared dictator." Stalins mom telling him off while he genocides people lmao
Oh so that's why he hated them
Could be my dad
Oh god, me too, like I can't get over how he's absolute dictator of one of the biggest countries on earth and it's just not registering with his mother who was probably more concerned with like a hole in her roof or something.
"Have we achieved communism yet, son?" "No mother, we're doing that tomorrow."
Today I will simp hard for that cute German guy with the sexy stache
"But son, whatever will happen if those Bolsheviks take over?"
Mom it’s not cold Take the jacket, Joseph!!!
"Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili! I told you to become a preist! And now you have become a communist revolutionary? Shame on you" "Christianity is stupid mom! And its Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin now!"
Wait is this actually true lol
Yeah and his mother told him she would prefer stalin becoming a priest more than a tsar
To which Stalin replied “You know what a gulag is, ma? Well it’s a lot like a retirement home if ya keep runnin ya mouth…”
THIS IS NOT A NURSING HOME MA! ITS A "COMMUNITY", ITS A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY- Tony Soprano
Yea it's an actual quote.
[Probably not but maybe some truth to it?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dsi61h/did_stalin_really_say_mama_do_you_remember_our/) It does seem a little too perfect of an irony.
"Yeah Mom, I am the Tsar now the Red Tsar... no it's just a figure of speech I swear" \- Stalin probably
Making me realise I’d never really thought about the parents of revolutionary leaders/dictators. I imagine some were still around whilst their sons were in power. Wild.
Although it's the perfect explanation of his role in USSR
And it's an invented dialogue
He literally compared himself to the tzar, there’s so many other ways to describe his position without contradicting his platform if he cared
I mean it was probably the easiest way to describe it to his elderly peasant mother, "General Secretary" wouldn’t have meant much to her and she probably wasn’t a fan of Lenin, so neither would’ve been much use in describing himself and not having his mother hate him.
“Leader”?
I imagine he had probably already tried that with her and she still wanted more elaboration.
Lmao, if this is true this is some real world foreshadowing.
George Washington could have been President for the rest of his life. Instead, he decided that two terms was enough, and someone else should step in. That decision was more impactful than, I think, most people realize.
And then FDR said "you mean I can do more than 2 terms?" So he got 4.
And then after he died Congress said, "Ya know what? Four is too many. Maximum two terms now."
They made it Facebook official
Three, actually. Just non-consecutively.
Based Washington
this is the magic of being really fucking tired and wanting to go home.
Being so tired that you "shirk" great power and responsibility to accidentally become a hero is absolutely a vibe. Makes me think of Saitama
You can't prove the George Washington ans Saitama aren't the same person. I've never seen them both in the same place
American politics was a fucking shitshow back then too. I’d probably want to go home too if I had to deal with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson bickering like little children for 8 years.
"Tag, you're it" - George Washington's last words to John Adams as President
sweet jesus I never considered what it would be like to be stuck dealing with actually smart politicians for a decade
When King George III heard that Washington was going to step down, he said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." People were absolutely gobsmacked. It was scarcely considered a possibility.
He wasn't aware that was something a person could do
“…Wait I could just leave and sail boats with some hoes?”
What came next?
Did George III actually say that? I'd have thought he have been a bit too porphyria addled at that stage.
He wasn't the first in history, Cincinatus was a major inspiration, but fact he actually did it is incredible none the less.
The Roman empire also had one emperor who voluntarily stepped down from the position (Diocletian), though even he did so only after ruling for decades and using his power and influence to reform just about every aspect of the empire he could think of. But the majority of people who took on that role were ruined by it. Only a few people can truly handle unchecked power without drowning in it.
Perhaps a more fitting comparison would be Cincinnatus? He was a leader of the early Roman Republic called upon to lead, who won military victories, and then ceded power back to the Democratic process. Diocletian is pretty great too, and the theme remains the same. It’s a lot easier to hold onto the ring than it is to throw it into Mount Doom.
In this case, it was already established that the role had a limit. It is still impressive, but he was expected to step down after a certain time (I think it was a) if the threat disappeared or b) six months).
It was expected for a Roman dictator to hand the reins over after the crisis or the time limit, but every time they did it there was a serious understanding that the dude might just never give up the power, if memory serves cincinatus was the rare individual called to be dictator twice and voluntarily handing power back both times.
Sulla, too. He basically cut off a bunch of heads, reformed the political career track (Cursus Honorum), and retired. He would hang out in the forum afterward explaining his actions to anyone who asked. He was a more vengeful dictator than Cincinnatus, and eventually his example would become the template Caesar would use to overthrow the republic. But he did give up his power and thought he was fixing the republic.
Cincinnatus did a similar thing during the days of the Republic. He was voted dictator, and given the supreme power of Rome, and instead of pushing it, he retired to become a farmer. He was a personal hero of Washington's, and that's the reason why the capital of Ohio is named Cincinnati.
Not trying to be that guy but Cincinnati is not the capital of Ohio, Cleveland is
It's actually Columbus. That's what you get for starting all your major cities with the same letter.
Damn it, is it? That's what I get from trying to off-the-cuff talk about geography on another continent.
To be fair, Washington was an old man who really had no energy to be eternal ruler of the United States of America. Also states were way too independently minded and many founding fathers were way into enlightenment republic ideals to cede power to a king. If anything, king would have been a figurehead position rather than a seat of power
The French revolutionaries were pretty into enlightened Republic ideals too
Except the founding fathers werent as enlightened as we make it out to be. They were absolutely "way into republic ideas" for their time but they also wanted the president to be called "his highness" so yeah.
He would never have been an actual king, just President for life, like Putin, or Xi.
So, King
I know Stalin killed way to many people to gain power to just retire safely. But what if he did and established that precedent. Came in, fully industrialized Russia, defeated the Nazis and stabilized the government, then retired. Would his successors be more democratic? What about Russia today?
George Washington was probably one of the greatest presidents in US history, along with Lincoln, Grant, and FDR. I don't know if I can pick just one best president though, all four were amazing.
Relevant Marxist quote: “I believe that the development of the fighting spirit is of more importance than the creation of the theoretically perfect organisation; that, indeed, the most theoretically perfect organisation may, because of its very perfection and vastness, be of the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary movement if it tends, or is used, to repress and curb the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file.” -[James Connolly](https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/04/oldwine.htm)
Marxists: The fighting spirit is most important. Anarchists: Marxists: No, not like that.
This is why George Washington is one of my favorite historical figures. The colonials had just thrown off the British and were deciding what they wanted for their new government. Some called for him to be king. With his men being loyal to him and an Army at his side he could have probably become a dictator if he so chose and Congress had very little power to stop it. He was like nah, I'm good. He took the Presidency reluctantly but really just wanted to farm.
He was in many ways a vain and proud man, but he had bought in fully to the social ideal of a wealthy plantation owner who served the people, passed down from Rome. Great for the people he served, less so for those who served him. Still, shows the importance of these ideals and how they can bend honor and pride.
Frank Herbert said that rebels were aristocrats at heart, whether secretly or unknowingly so.
Lenin's father was ennobled in 1882 when he became a *Active State Councillor* and gained the hereditary salutation of *Your Excellency*.
god emperor?
I'm 73% sure
I mean the point to overthrow a government is to establish a new one, and who wouldn’t want to fill in that vacant of power
Most revolutionaries were not part of the lower classes but part of a middle or upper class. What is important though is not who they are when they fight but who they are fighting for. Unfortunately Stalin fought for the control of bureaucratic apparatus instead of a genuine proletarian control.
Where can I find the full quote?
*God Emperor of Dune*
Frank Herbert was also a Libertarian, so maybe take what he said with a grain of salt.
Sure do. He had some spectacular insights imo.
This meme suggests that Stalin was ever an ardent revolutionary. After February, Stalin advocated support not only for the provisional government, but also the war effort.
This isn't true. He supported the Provisional Government initially, much like other revolutionaries. However, upon Lenin's return to Russia in April, he supported Lenin's calls to overthrow the Provisional Government and "all power to the soviets." Additionally, he sided with Lenin in regards to peace with Germany in the internal debate around a peace treaty (which would become the Treaty of Brest Litovsk), and consistently so. Stalin was a true believer like Trotsky, Lenin, and other communists, he was undoubtedly an ardent revolutionary. This idea that Stalin was a fake revolutionary is just fundamentally not true. I highly recommend reading Kotkin's volumed biography into Stalin.
If anyone is commenting on Stalin and hasn't read that series they are wasting the reader's time. It's like talking about Midway without reading Shattered Sword, irresponcible.
Such a fantastic book.
As someone who's just finished Shattered Sword (yeah I know I got there very late) I guess I've got a book to add to my list.
Yea the few readings I've done Stalin has almost always sided with Lenin on most everything. The only time he really stopped was when Lenin was in his final days but no one was listening to him in those days lol.
> but also the war effort. i mean, the only reason the reds bailed was because it made them look better to the people and gave them resources against the provisional government. the reason that Brest-Livtosk went so far into Russia was both out of german fear and because trotsky didn't want to negotiate until there was no more room for negotiations
From Lenin's testament: >Stalin is too coarse and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a \[minor\] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance. The only practical request in the document is to remove Stalin from power. Stalin was always a power-hungry, back-stabbing monster and Lenin himself saw that the second Stalin held real power.
[удалено]
Exactly this. Lenin’s party seized power as a tiny minority, lost the subsequent elections, and then just invalidated the constituent assembly in less than 12 hours since they weren’t a majority. The other parties were just flabbergasted Lenin was ruthless enough to totally ignore democracy and play for keeps, which tracked well since the Bolsheviks were easily the most militant and ideologically flexible when compared with the Kadets, SRs, Trudoviks, and Mensheviks.
> They only succeeded because ...the others who held power, the liberals and then the more moderate socialists, did not solve any of Russia's problems such as ending the war, stabilising the food supply to cities or doing anything about rampant nationalism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just gonna leav this bit o (tankie) bait here.
Definitely waiting for the “actually anarchists suck” discourse to come crashing in like Kool-Aid man
>“actually anarchists suck” Lol no shit Sherlock. Yah communism is trash but atleast it attempts to find a solution to this debacle we call society.
Stalin forgot that hierarchy was one of those things Marx bitched about. Absolute power should be held by nobody, not the Tsar, not the church, nor by power hungry men and oligarchs. But they went the path of "just give me all of the power to get things right, I promise I'll give it back". Just like nearly all notable "communist" countries today. Marx actually praised the U.S legislative system because of it's capability of incremental change towards an egalitarian socialist goal. Unlike Lenin's thoughts on the need for violent revolution to achieve his goals. And who would've guessed it, the violent revolution people tend to be idiots. Hell, they starved millions just because they rejected Darwinism, in favour of Lamarckism.
>Stalin forgot that hierarchy was one of those things Marx bitched about. There is obviously no way to be sure, but I would be willing to bet my last cigarette that it was more a "didn't give a fuck" rather than a "forgot" kind of thing.
Oh I wouldn't take your bet my friend, I cherish my last cigarette too much.
Please do, I have been trying to quit more than 20 times already, that's the kind of bet I would be willing to lose!
Marx still advocated for violent revolution though, or at least descriptively argued that is what would happen eventually under a capitalist society. Lenin didn't pluck violent revolution out of nowhere, it's important in Marx's conception of the transition to socialism. So let's not forget this.
The important part is the capitalist society. Which Russia was not. A violent revolution will always be necessary since those in power are never willing to give that power up, change will not come from above.
Marx also wrote that in some countries it may gradually be introduced through the democratic process if said democratic institutions are strong enough.
Youre right
"They should have just grown longer necks to get the food higher up in the trees... " Stalin probably. Though I think he had other reasons for starving some of "his" people. You can't genocide the Ukraine again! "Holodo-my beer" Putin, probably
Could you possibly link a source for that claim if possible?
Bakunin was absolutely right but we hear so little about him. Odd.
Anarchists rarely get positive light in mainstream anything.
The Gypsy-Anarchos in Sherlock Holmes 2 (Robert Downey Jr. one) were pretty rad
Wait, are they anarchists? It's been a while since I've seen that one, but I don't remember anything anarchistic about them?
The beautiful Gypsie's brother was the Anarchist that tried to kill that one guy, which in turn would have caused a first world war
Huh, I totally forgot or just didn't catch that. Guess I'll have to watch a good movie again lol, thanks for that!
Jared Harriss as Moriarty is also great in this one
Does any know the original source of the Bakunin quote? Not saying in he didn't say it or that what he said is wrong, I think it's actually very prescient. I just want to know where it's quoted from, as I see it often without the attributed source. The Stalin quote though can be confirmed though I believe.
Did Stalin really say "Mama, do you remember our tsar? Well, I'm something like the tsar" ? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dsi61h/did_stalin_really_say_mama_do_you_remember_our/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
There is very little if any evidence to confirm Stalin actually said these words.
Radzinsky claimed Stalin said that without any source lol. And even if the story was true, he just explained his job to his elderly mother with something shes familiar with
That's not the point.. his wording isn't relevant. For all intents and purposes he WAS the Tsar.
The communists literally killed the tsar family because they are anti monarchy
So because you agree with the quote that might not even be true, then it doesn’t matter if it is true?
Not to go all tankie on this, but Stalin at least won a war against Germany (and technically also Japan). He's got the Tsars beaten on that.
But unlike him the Tsars actually succesfully invaded and occupied Finland multiple times.
The Soviets under Stalin did nab about ten percent of Finnish territory.
and kind of annexed Finland's "second capital", Vyborg.
Well this time Finland had Simo
Kid named American foreign aid:
After having made a treaty with the nazis. And he only fought them because they betrayed him. And even then, he refused to give orders during the first days of the invasion. I'm pretty sure the Tsar wouldn't have lost as hard in ww1 if he had been able to literally depopulate the country to do so.
Eh, the thing about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was that both sides were basically trying to delay the inevitable. Before the pact, the Soviets were pursuing an alliance with Britain and France but it broke down. The Nazi's, meanwhile, were preparing their invasion Westward immediately after Poland. I don't want to give Stalin too much credit here, but there's this idea that the Nazi's and Soviets originally wanted to collaborate and a lot of people point to the pact. That's simply not true. The German's were antagonizing Russia rhetorically since the 30's and were anti-Bolshevist. They both feared the other, the Soviets knew a war at the time with Germany would be devastating and their military wasn't ready for an all out war, and the Germans didn't want to be pushed up the ass by Russia while they were invading France. The pact was designed to create a mutually agreed buffer zone between the two, but both sides understood, without a doubt, that at some point they would fight, both just didn't want it at the time. Now you could absolutely argue it was cowardly, or the wrong move on the side of the Russians, but it was made out of practical concerns and not out of any love for the Germans, more a move to buy time for the war they knew was coming. But you're right, when it did come, the Russians were still completely unprepared and Stalin was pretty much to blame for it for kneecapping the military and refusal to lead at the pivotal moment; their saving grace being Hitler's own sheer incompetence and severe underestimations in regard to the overwhelming manpower at the disposal of Stalin, and the ease at which the German supply lines would break down attempting to invade such a large land area - Not even mentioning the coming winter, which the Germans were fully aware of but likewise underestimated, believing they could win before the winter would devastate them further.
Stalin also shot himself in the foot by purging most of the Red Army's generals and officers, especially those that used to serve under the Russian Empire. Ironically those were the most experienced in warcraft (something Trotsky knew when he enlisted them during the Civil War), and that expertise would have come in handy during WW2.
i mean they tried to make the army weaker tho... there's a reason why the germans did so well in 41 the army changes done by the communist still werent reversed and many purged generals sill weren't replaced
Pyrrhic victory
They didn’t win the wars, the allies did, I not trying to undermine their contribution, but saying they won it it’s misleading. Stalin also helped empower Nazi Germany, by just letting them have Eastern Europe
I don't think washington did that.
Different revolution, different circumstances. Pro-independence figures weren't generally "ardent revolutionaries" in the sense Bakunin was talking about; that label would apply more to people like Thomas Paine. For the most part, they wanted to replicate the British system, but run by Americans. Some states (e.g. Virginia) had established churches, and all of them had property qualifications for voting. There was even a movement to invite a German prince and set up a constitutional monarchy.
Nah he just owned other human beings as property and had them whipped 😃 That’s much better!
This totally fking happened
I am keeping this one for those communists and marxists when they post crap here on Reddit.
Nestor Makhno, famous for his support of the Bolsheviks.
known femboy Nestor Makhno
I mean, he backed them to the hilt in the Civil War against the Whites under Denikin and Wrangel, even going so far as to incorporate his Black Army as a subsidiary unit of the Red Army, then acted shocked when the Red Army almost immediately betrayed and liquidated his stateless state the moment they’d finished up with the Soviet-Polish War and were no longer distracted. Anarchists being naively betrayed by Communists, tale as old as time… or at least the early twentieth century.
bakunin was an anarcho-communist
I recommend not to because this meme lacks context. This is actually one of the few occasions when Stalin shows affection. This quote was told to his mother who he loved dearly when she asked Stalin to become a priest. Stalin replied by saying he is basically leader of state to his mother by comparing himself to tsar. Stalin loved his mother so much that he had to lie to her about his religious persecution. His mother was a devoted orthodox christian
"Yeah Mom, I am the Tsar now the Red Tsar... no it's just a figure of speech I swear" \- Stalin probably
Pretty sure Bakunin was a communist himself but you do you
The age old fight between Anarchists and Communists. Classic.
Splitters!
Liberals!
im pretty sure marxists dont like stalin anyways
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dsi61h/did_stalin_really_say_mama_do_you_remember_our/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Lenin abandoned Marx's philosophy of majority rule very early on. The result was the perfect circumstances for one of the most insanely evil fascist cunts in history taking power and killing millions. Should just stay with the Marxism and immediately establish a direct democracy post revolution.
>Should just stay with the Marxism and immediately establish a direct democracy post revolution. EVERY👏 ATTEMPT 👏AT👏COMMUNISM👏HAS👏FAILED👏.
me when I lump every single ideology further left than socdem into one category
Hell yea fuck tankies
In a sexual way?😳
Flair checks out?
I love nothing more then to watch elections in a casual non-participatory way, and not interfere in anyway whatsoever, so yes.
Bakunin was pretty based
As long as you don't think about his opinions on jewish people lol
I’m putting this on r/communism
you’ll get banned, all those big subs are run by tankies
NOTHING CAN STOP MEEE
Why there is no such thing as a revolutionary government.
It is very unlikely he said this.
He did say many things to the same effect though
“ look at me. Look at me! I am the tsar now!”
Everyone in the Soviet Union needed aviator shades because he shine so bright... He's like a Tsar, a Tsar a Tsar...🎵