Who was the worst leader of the Soviet Union?

[Tommy4ever]

Who do you believe was the worst leader of the Soviet Union?

[Tommy4ever]

I'd go for Brezhnev myself.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Brezhnev due to the length of his rule, stagnation and implementation of State-Capitalism even further than Khrushchev had done, had Andropov been in Brezhnev's position for the same amount of time however, I would have easily went with Andropov.
As far as Gorbachev goes, Gorbachev inherently represented the like-minded opinions of State-Capitalists that were within the CPSU during the time, who had recognized that the USSR was capable of transformation from State-Capitalism into Capitalism itself, its rather pointless to choose him as the worse when in the end he simply completed the degradation of the USSR into what is now an oligarchical Russian Federation. Its much more relevant in this case to select those who had led the USSR onto this course of State-Capitalism and degradation and the inevitable dissolution of the USSR.

[robbo203]

Who do you believe was the worst leader of the Soviet Union?

Why does it matter? Why give credence to the Great Man Theory of History? Its the system that matters not the individuals who preside over it

[Ismail]

This is the personalization of periods of history. Contrasting Lenin and Gorbachev (outside of ideology) is like contrasting Thomas Jefferson and Lyndon B. Johnson. The period of 1917-1941 was clearly distinct from the 1941-1956 and then 1956-1985 periods, not to mention the final 1985-1991 period. As such "who was the worst leader" is stupid for similar reasons as using a left-right "compass" for ideology.

Speaking from my ideology, I can basically say the following: Lenin was awesome. Stalin was pretty awesome. Malenkov was a right-winger, Bulganin was ass, Khrushchev was ass, Brezhnev was ass, Andropov was ass, Chernenko barely did anything but would have been ass, and Gorbachev was a pilonidal cyst.

[Omsk]

This thread is silly,we should first define a bad Soviet Leader,as some of the leaders mentioned above did both good and bad things.It is rather complicated.
I will give each one of them a mark.

Lenin.
9.7/10
Lenin was the first and if you ask me,the most important Soviet leader.
Stalin.
8.9/10
Stalin created a mighty and strong Soviet Union and led it through the greatest war humanity knew,and he led it well.He knew how to lead it.
Khrushchev.
5/10
He was a revisionist and during his reign,the SU started to go downhill.
Brezhnev.
6/10
Stagnation period,although he did good on the matters of the military and international status.
Andropov.
4/10
No good.
Chernenko.
4/10
No good.
Gorbachev.
9.9
He was one good capitalist!

[Revolutionair]

Answer 8: all of the above. :D

[Red Future]

Andropov..died and that is his legacy.He died

[Omsk]

I don't think half of the people here even heard of Andropov or Chernenko..

[Impulse97]

I don't think half of the people here even heard of Andropov or Chernenko..


I hadn't. Any info on them?

[Tommy4ever]

I hadn't. Any info on them?

They were old and they died.

[Gustav HK]

I hadn't. Any info on them?

I have heard, that one of them, I think it was Chernenko, once saluted a bouquet of flowers.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Andropov was like a more left-wing anti-corruption Brezhnev, if he'd lived longer the USSR might still exist at least

[Kuppo Shakur]

:bored:
Trash.
Please.

[Sam_b]

This is a horrible thread. What does it even mean?

[Arlekino]

Andropov was like a more left-wing anti-corruption Brezhnev, if he'd lived longer the USSR might still exist at least
Quite right, it was more smarter controled society, it started police asking people in street "Do you work or not", it was law you have to work other ways those times could face jail for two years. Even I do remember one person went to jail becouse out of work for some time. Well but worse Gorbochov radical introduction of capitalism radical changed alcohol laws, which was disaster. People went mad about sugar price go up and making "Samogon" it was home made wodka, many people actually died or become very ill. As regards to Breznev some ups and downs. Yes again I wish to repeat workers was corrupt as well was not only high rink communist party members.

[Sir Comradical]

This is a horrible thread. What does it even mean?

Errr...who was the worst leader of the Soviet Union?!?

[DinodudeEpic]

Stalin is definitely the worst leader of the Soviet Union. I actually don't hate Gorbachev as much as most of the other Soviet leaders. (At least, he was a social democrat instead of a state capitalist.) Lenin wasn't bad at all by Soviet standards, but I do hate his policies on political dissidents like the SR and Menshevik parties. The rest of the leaders are simply state capitalists.

[RED DAVE]

stalin broke the heart of socialism for the whole world

RED DAVE

[red cat]

The response I was looking for. :D

[RedSunRising]

stalin broke the heart of socialism for the whole world

RED DAVE

One man having that massive power, not for materialist of you to say that is it? :rolleyes: Trots and their "great man" view of history...:blushing:

[RED DAVE]

stalin broke the heart of socialism for the whole world
One man having that massive power, not for materialist of you to say that is it? :rolleyes: Trots and their "great man" view of history...:blushing:Piss off, clown.

RED DAVE

[Spawn of Stalin]

stalin broke the heart of socialism for the whole world

RED DAVE

Easily the best thing I ever read on revleft

[TwoSevensClash]

poor malenkov wasn't mentioned

[TwoSevensClash]

Andropov..died and that is his legacy.He died
and invited that little girl from the US to the USSR

[Ismail]

Andropov was like a more left-wing anti-corruption Brezhnev, if he'd lived longer the USSR might still exist at leastActually people like Gorbachev began to thrive under him. It was when Andropov died and Chernenko rose up for like 5 minutes before falling over dead that there was a brief halt to the pro-market faction.


I actually don't hate Gorbachev as much as most of the other Soviet leaders. (At least, he was a social democrat instead of a state capitalist.)So you support open anti-communists (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm) who call for all "humane" peoples to unite with, say, "democratic" America against "communist" China?

[Omsk]

This thread and pole are nonsense.
I mean,Stalin has a bit less negative votes than Gorby,the man who was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union!? And people like Khrushchev are "ok"
I mean,even Lenin has 5 votes...

But its always fun to see people viewing Stalin as the worst leader of the Soviet Union.:laugh:
The man that made it a great superpower and saved it in WW2.He alongside Lenin is the foundation of the SU and all the other socialist states..

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Actually people like Gorbachev began to thrive under him. It was when Andropov died and Chernenko rose up for like 5 minutes before falling over dead that there was a brief halt to the pro-market faction.
Really? Oh well, I'd gotten the impression that he was more of a "hardliner" and was big on fighting corruption and such

[Ismail]

Really? Oh well, I'd gotten the impression that he was more of a "hardliner" and was big on fighting corruption and suchHe did fight corruption, but then again that doesn't really make him a great guy. His economic proposals were basically just "we are facing problems, and we must raise living standards," which is what just about every single revisionist says. The Soviets after Stalin pretty much equated socialism with the development of the productive forces (though not to the extent of Deng) and higher living standards. It's why Khrushchev had his ridiculous "we'll out-compete the West to show the superiority of socialism" views.

Also being a "hardliner" just meant being a Brezhnevite.

[pranabjyoti]

This thread and pole are nonsense.
I mean,Stalin has a bit less negative votes than Gorby,the man who was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union!? And people like Khrushchev are "ok"
I mean,even Lenin has 5 votes...

But its always fun to see people viewing Stalin as the worst leader of the Soviet Union.:laugh:
The man that made it a great superpower and saved it in WW2.He alongside Lenin is the foundation of the SU and all the other socialist states..
Actually, this votes just showed what's the basic mentality of "western" socialists(!). As per someone, "social democracy" is better than "state capitalism".
This thread is nothing but an example of idiocy of "western" English speaking "socialist minded" people.

[Andropov]

He did fight corruption, but then again that doesn't really make him a great guy. His economic proposals were basically just "we are facing problems, and we must raise living standards," which is what just about every single revisionist says. The Soviets after Stalin pretty much equated socialism with the development of the productive forces (though not to the extent of Deng) and higher living standards. It's why Khrushchev had his ridiculous "we'll out-compete the West to show the superiority of socialism" views.

Also being a "hardliner" just meant being a Brezhnevite.
If Yuri Andropov didnt die so soon the USSR would probably still be in existance.
He tackled the rampant corruption, not only among the Politburo but also among those involved in the black market economy that was not only crippling alot of state industry but was also fermenting a bourgeois class whos economic interests were tied to private capital.
He also tackled one of the thorny issues that many before him chose to ignore such as the rampant alcoholism in the USSR which saw a significant improvement on alcohol related problems in his short time in charge.
He recognised the difficulties faceing the Soviet economy and recognised it required restructuring. He was no revisionist, he was an adamant Marxist Leninist but was willing to recognise the slowing of growth of the Soviet Economy required changes, as with other exploits in his short period of time in charge the economy also saw a slight upturn.
The reforms that Yuri Andropov initiated in his short period in power demonstrated that the Soviet economy was not destined to spiralling slower growth, demonstrated that liberalism among the Politburo and the people would not be tolerated with private economy enterprises.
He was a ML'ist to the core, Andropov was no Western star gazer as Gorbachov was, where as Gorbachov chose his holidays in the west Andropov chose his in all Eastern Block and Peoples Republics, he was no Western sympathiser.
Not only this but his renowned work rate and administration abilities were second to none.
Yuri Andropov's short period in power is the example to show all Bourgeois critics who say the Soviet economy was destined for failure that that was not the case.

[Ismail]

As a note, in 1980 Enver Hoxha recalled (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm) Andropov in Hungary in 1956:

The scabby bird, Imre Nagy, had flown from the hands of Khrushchev and Suslov. This traitor, in whom Moscow had placed its hopes, like a drowning man clutching at his own hair to save himself from death, showed what he was, and in the upsurge of the counter-revolutionary fury, announced his reactionary policy and made public declarations about Hungary’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Treaty. The Soviet ambassador in Hungary was a certain Andropov, a KGB man, who was elevated to power later and played a dirty role against us. This agent, with the label of ambassador, found himself surrounded by the counter-revolution which broke out. Even when the counter-revolutionary events were taking place openly, when Nagy came to the head of the government, the Soviets still continued to support him, apparently hoping that they could keep him under control. During those days, after the first half-hearted intervention of the Soviet army, Andropov told our ambassador in Budapest:

“We cannot call the insurgents counter-revolutionaries because there are honest people among them. The new government is good and it is necessary to support it in order to stabilize the situation.”

“What do you think of Nagy’s speeches?” our ambassador asked him.

“They are not bad,” replied Andropov, and when our comrade pointed out that what was being said about the Soviet Union did not seem to be correct, he replied:

“There is anti-Sovietism, but Nagy’s recent speech was not bad, it was not anti-Soviet. He wants to maintain links with the masses. The Political Bureau is good and has credit.

The counter-revolutionaries acted with such arrogance that they forced Andropov, together with all his staff, out into the street and left them there for hours on end. We instructed our ambassador in Budapest to take measures for the defence of the embassy and its staff, and to place a machine-gun at the top of the stairs. If the counter-revolutionaries dared to attack the embassy he was to open fire without hesitation. But when our ambassador asked Andropov for weapons to ensure the defence of our embassy, he refused:

“We have diplomatic immunity, therefore no one will touch you.”

“What diplomatic immunity?!” said our ambassador. “They threw you out into the street.”

“No, no,” said Andropov, “if we give you arms, some incident might be created.”

“Very well,” said our representative. “I am making you an official request on behalf of the Albanian government.”

“I shall ask Moscow,” said Andropov, and when the request was refused our ambassador declared:

“All right, only I am letting you know that we shall defend ourselves with the pistol and shotguns we have.”

The Soviet ambassador had shut himself up in the embassy and did not dare to stick his head out. A responsible functionary of the Foreign Ministry of Hungary, who was being chased by the bandits, sought refuge in our embassy and we admitted him. He told our comrades that he had gone to the Soviet embassy but they had turned him away.

[dernier combat]

This thread is nothing but an example of idiocy of "western" English speaking "socialist minded" people.
This clown has come to entertain us.

[pranabjyoti]

This clown has come to entertain us.
A huge lot is already present here and THEY ARE PLAYING GOOD, perfect to the tunes of liberalism.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

This clown has come to entertain us.
He's completely correct

[Andropov]

As a note, in 1980 Enver Hoxha recalled (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm) Andropov in Hungary in 1956:
And?

[Ismail]

And?Andropov was just your generic pro-Soviet "Marxist-Leninist." I don't see any evidence that he was some sort of genuine Marxist-Leninist.

[Andropov]

Andropov was just your generic pro-Soviet "Marxist-Leninist." I don't see any evidence that he was some sort of genuine Marxist-Leninist.
That quote cannot define the man, it is deeply subjective not to mention the complexities of the Hungarian context if it is to be taken as purely objective.

[dernier combat]

He's completely correct
In what, his terrible generalisation of all western, English-speaking socialists as idiots?

[pranabjyoti]

In what, his terrible generalisation of all western, English-speaking socialists as idiots?
Those who want to lynch Stalinists everyday, mark Lenin-Stalin, the protector and makers of USSR as the worst leader of USSR and give Khrushchev some kind of rebate certainly belong to that category. My inference is based on the result of the votes above.

[Tommy4ever]

Which jokers voted Lenin btw? :p

I am guessing this was a joke, or is there an actual reason you voted this way?

I'm suprised so few have voted for Brezhnev.

[∞]

Lenin: 7/10: Strategically he did do some positive things for the SU.

Stalin 2/10: He completely dismantled the inner party union in a "centralized democracy" by purging his own party members. He was ruthless and left a high body count for the sake of industrialization. The ends don't justify the means. He also left the world with a disgusting, vile interpretation of socialism.

Khrushchev 8/10: Thats right , at least he was (sort of) able to re-strengthen a parliamentary aspect of the SU.

Brezhnev 2.2/10: Probably one of the worst economic minds in history.

Gorbachev 7/10: I give him props for Glasnost. Honestly he wasn't terrible, but his fluffiness (i.e. Perestroika) led to Yeltsin's horrific dismantling of the SU.

[pranabjyoti]

Lenin: 7/10: Strategically he did do some positive things for the SU.

Stalin 2/10: He completely dismantled the inner party union in a "centralized democracy" by purging his own party members. He was ruthless and left a high body count for the sake of industrialization. The ends don't justify the means. He also left the world with a disgusting, vile interpretation of socialism.

Khrushchev 8/10: Thats right , at least he was (sort of) able to re-strengthen a parliamentary aspect of the SU.

Brezhnev 2.2/10: Probably one of the worst economic minds in history.

Gorbachev 7/10: I give him props for Glasnost. Honestly he wasn't terrible, but his fluffiness (i.e. Perestroika) led to Yeltsin's horrific dismantling of the SU.
A good example of how much liberal a**holes are already gathered here.

[∞]

A good example of how much liberal a**holes are already gathered here.



OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 LIBRAWLZ! LIBERALZ! IF U SORTA LIKE gORBAchev youz a LIBERAL! IF U NO LIKE PAPA STALIN YOU A LIBERAL!

If you morons think using the l-word has any effect at all, then you are completely mistaken. Fuck You.

[Impulse97]

Lenin: 7/10: Good. Made some mistakes for sure, but overall he did very well.

Stalin 4/10: Below average. Made some good gains, but his repression and general nuttiness is not good. As BM said, the ends do not justify the means.

Khrushchev 2/10: Revisionist BS. Good for political freedom, but other than that, complete BS.

Brezhnev ?/10: Heard some bad things, but I don't know wnough to make an opinion. From what I do know he'd be pretty low on the list.

Gorbachev 3/10: More revisionist BS.

[Ismail]

Khrushchev 8/10: Thats right , at least he was (sort of) able to re-strengthen a parliamentary aspect of the SU.Really? Stalin wanted to separate the party from the state in his latter years and in fact resigned as General Secretary of the Party in 1952 in order to help achieve this (he was still Chairman of the Council of Ministers). It was Khrushchev who made sure the Party institutions dominated the State.

Also what sort of "parliamentary" stuff do you find commendable in the 1960's-80's USSR? What "re-strengthening" occurred?


Gorbachev 7/10: I give him props for Glasnost. Honestly he wasn't terrible, but his fluffiness (i.e. Perestroika) led to Yeltsin's horrific dismantling of the SU."My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people... I decided that I must destroy the whole apparatus of the CPSU and the USSR... My ideal is the path of social democracy. Only this system shall benefit all the people." (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm)

Also saying that Brezhnev was "one of the worst" in economics yet praising Gorbachev is more than a little strange. It isn't like Perestroika didn't negatively affect the Soviet economy.

Glasnost was ass. If you think that's some fringe "Stalinist" opinion, most Trotskyists would concur with me. It gave "freedom of speech" to such wonderful organizations as Pamyat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamyat) and various right-wing ethnic nationalist groups.

[∞]

Really? Stalin wanted to separate the party from the state in his latter years and in fact resigned as General Secretary of the Party in 1952 in order to help achieve this (he was still Chairman of the Council of Ministers). It was Khrushchev who made sure the Party institutions dominated the State.

Also what sort of "parliamentary" stuff do you find commendable in the 1960's-80's USSR? What "re-strengthening" occurred?

Despite his rank, Khrushchev never exercised the dictatorial authority of Stalin, nor did he ever completely control the party, even at the peak of his power. His attacks on members of the "antiparty group" at the Twenty-First Party Congress in 1959 and the Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961 suggest that his opponents retained support within the party. Khrushchev's relative political insecurity probably accounted for some of his grandiose pronouncements, for example his 1961 promise that the Soviet Union would attain communism by 1980. His desire to undermine opposition and mollify critics explained the nature of many of his domestic reforms and the vacillations in his foreign policy toward the West.

In a politically motivated move to weaken the central state bureaucracy, in 1957 Khrushchev did away with the industrial ministries in Moscow and replaced them with regional economic councils.


(http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm)"My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people... I decided that I must destroy the whole apparatus of the CPSU and the USSR... My ideal is the path of social democracy. Only this system shall benefit all the people." (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm)

Also saying that Brezhnev was "one of the worst" in economics yet praising Gorbachev is more than a little strange. It isn't like Perestroika didn't negatively affect the Soviet economy.

Glasnost was ass. If you think that's some fringe "Stalinist" opinion, most Trotskyists would concur with me. It gave "freedom of speech" to such wonderful organizations as Pamyat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamyat) and various right-wing ethnic nationalist groups.

I don't care what he thought communism was, it doesn't matter to me. I don't strictly adhere to a belief above all else. I look at the consequences of actions, to me a social democracy is far more superior than a bureaucratic welfare state. Despite the obvious disadvantages for social democracy. I don't agree with Perestroika either, its inevitably lead to fall of the SU. However, I don't think thats what Gorbachev intended it to do.

In a nutshell, I believe Gorbachev took a small successive step which stumbled backwards under Yeltsin.

I don't care if fascists can have their voice be heard, freedom of the press should be essential in a socialist country.

[Ismail]

Despite his rank, Khrushchev never exercised the dictatorial authority of Stalin, nor did he ever completely control the party, even at the peak of his power.Probably because bureaucrats wanted "normalcy." They wanted better relations with the West, economic reforms, better security for their positions, and so on.


His attacks on members of the "antiparty group" at the Twenty-First Party Congress in 1959 and the Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961 suggest that his opponents retained support within the party.His opponents (at least in 1959) didn't feel that way at all.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/kagano.htm

[∞]

Probably because bureaucrats wanted "normalcy." They wanted better relations with the West, economic reforms, better security for their positions, and so on.

Ok.


His opponents (at least in 1959) didn't feel that way at all.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/kagano.htm[

Sorry it is blocked at my school.

[Manic Impressive]

Which jokers voted Lenin btw? :p

I am guessing this was a joke, or is there an actual reason you voted this way?

I'm suprised so few have voted for Brezhnev.
well there's two reasons that someone could vote for Lenin. It could be because the system he set up was fundamentally flawed from the start and all leaders after him were working within a structure which was bound to fail. Or it could be just to troll M-L. I voted Lenin for a bit of both :lol:

[Omsk]

Lenin: 7/10: Strategically he did do some positive things for the SU.

Stalin 2/10: He completely dismantled the inner party union in a "centralized democracy" by purging his own party members. He was ruthless and left a high body count for the sake of industrialization. The ends don't justify the means. He also left the world with a disgusting, vile interpretation of socialism.

Khrushchev 8/10: Thats right , at least he was (sort of) able to re-strengthen a parliamentary aspect of the SU.

Brezhnev 2.2/10: Probably one of the worst economic minds in history.

Gorbachev 7/10: I give him props for Glasnost. Honestly he wasn't terrible, but his fluffiness (i.e. Perestroika) led to Yeltsin's horrific dismantling of the SU.
__________________

Khrushchev gets an 8 while Lenin gets 7! :thumbup: Nice logic western comrade!And even Gorby got an 7! Wow,he was,after all,so great for all the liberals and capitalists in the SU.

[Pretty Flaco]

Even though I despise Stalin, he was probably the strongest leader of the Soviet Union. He caused the industrialization of the country in 30 years, that's a ridiculously quick rate of industrialization. Stalin was the one who created a world power from a backwards agricultural country.

He made the Soviet Union powerful, but he did it at the expense of the people. And he was particularly brutal in his methods.

[Omsk]

Even though I despise Stalin, he was probably the strongest leader of the Soviet Union. He caused the industrialization of the country in 30 years, that's a ridiculously quick rate of industrialization. Stalin was the one who created a world power from a backwards agricultural country.

He made the Soviet Union powerful, but he did it at the expense of the people. And he was particularly brutal in his methods.


And yet,although i guess you do it for a joke,your avatar represents a certain aspect of Stalins rule.

[bezdomni]

Fuck Andropov! He knows what he did...

[Nolan]

Voted Khrushchev on steroids, i.e. Gorbachev.

[Rafiq]

stalin broke the heart of socialism for the whole world

RED DAVE


I don't think the 'heart of socialism' was ever really 'broken'.

Though I do think that what destroyed the chance for International revolution, was the failure of the German Revolution. Not Lenin, or Stalin, or any of that idealist crap.

[Rafiq]

Voted Khrushchev on steroids, i.e. Gorbachev.

Gorbachev did not resemble Khrushchev in any way.

Khrushchev didn't really change the economic policy that was put forth by Stalin at all.

I'd say, if you ask me, that Gorbachev was Bhrezov's big brother.

[Rafiq]

Andropov was just your generic pro-Soviet "Marxist-Leninist." I don't see any evidence that he was some sort of genuine Marxist-Leninist.

What is a genuine Marxist-Leninist?

Stalin and Hoxha? .....

[Ismail]

Khrushchev didn't really change the economic policy that was put forth by Stalin at all.http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html

Stalin's book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Lenin: 7/10: Cool mustache.

Stalin 2/10: Farted too much: Stinky underpants.

Khrushchev 8/10: Like a Russian Che.

Brezhnev 2.2/10: Name ends in "ev" but not "chev". LAAAME.

Gorbachev 7/10: Gives generous tips.

[Rafiq]

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/SovietBB.htm
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html

Stalin's book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died.

I don't care.

What did he actually change?

[dernier combat]

Those who want to lynch Stalinists everyday
Obviously you're unfamiliar with the concept of humor.

[Ismail]

I don't care.

What did he actually change?Well apparently you don't care what he actually changed.

Here's one example (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n1/trory.htm):

Capitalist decentralisation proceeded apace in the agricultural sector where commodity production and circulation were widened. The abolition of the obligatory quotas of the produce of the collective farms meant that the multiplicity of forms of exchange were reduced to a single system of state purchasing which increased the volume of commodities in circulation. In February 1958 measures were taken to convert the Machine Tractor Stations into maintenance and repair stations and sell their machinery to the collective farms. This was considered as an important revolutionary step by the Khrushchev government which indicated that for the first time the land and the machinery were now concentrated in the same hands which opened up additional possibilities for rapidly increasing agricultural output. While recognising that agricultural production did increase in the short run Ernie Trory argues that, as Stalin had correctly forewarned in his last classical work Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, that this would be a retrograde step in terms of economic relations as it would mean that the instruments of production would become commodities passing out of the hands of social property to become group property as would the whole of the product of the collective farms.
From the Nicolaus book I linked:

In Stalin's last published writing, "Economic Problems of Socialism" (1952), there are clear warnings regarding the collective farms and about the commodity-exchange relations involved in this form. "It would be unpardonable blindness not to see at the same time," Stalin writes, "that these factors are already beginning to hamper the powerful development of our productive forces, since they create obstacles to the full extension of government planning to the whole of the national economy, especially agriculture. There is no doubt that these factors will hamper the continued growth of the productive forces of our country more and more as time goes on. The task, therefore, is to eliminate these contradictions by gradually converting collective-farm property into public property, and by introducing -- also gradually -- products-exchange in place of commodity circulation." (Peking, Foreign Languages Press ed., p. 70).

We know from subsequent events that the bourgeois elements within the USSR and its communist party did not agree with this estimate of Stalin's. Nor did they agree with his strict injunction (in the same work) against the idea of selling off the machines and tractors to the collective farms, a proposal that was bound to lead, Stalin wrote, "to the regeneration of capitalism." (p. 96)The first link I provided gives various examples in industry.

[Omsk]

Judging from this poll,the best leader the USSR had was Chernenko!
Who would have guessed!

[Tommy4ever]

Judging from this poll,the best leader the USSR had was Chernenko!
Who would have guessed!

I guess people think he didn't live long enough to be the worst.

Doesn't mean anyone thinks he was the best.

[Omsk]

I am just joking,its obvious that people here don't know much about Andropov or Chernenko,so they naturally didn't vote for them.;)

[∞]

Khrushchev gets an 8 while Lenin gets 7! :thumbup: Nice logic western comrade!And even Gorby got an 7! Wow,he was,after all,so great for all the liberals and capitalists in the SU.

Derp.

[∞]

Khrushchev gets an 8 while Lenin gets 7! :thumbup: Nice logic western comrade!And even Gorby got an 7! Wow,he was,after all,so great for all the liberals and capitalists in the SU.

By the way my ratings aren't for who I agree with politically, but who was best for the SU. If we mention what happens with other countries too I'd give Stalin a 2 and Khrushchev a 6. I'd give Gorby a 5.5. I'd give Brezbro a 4.3.

[Old Mole]

They all did so many bad things, like being a bunch of thermidorians, liquidators of revolutions, enemies of the working class and state capitalists. For me, they are all winners of the title. :)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Gorbachev hands down

[Born in the USSR]

:thumbup: Nice logic western comrade!

Western comrades always know everything better than you even when they know nothing! :)

But yet I 'll dare to say a few words,too.

In the history of Russia from ancient times there were only six general secretaries.

The very first was Stalin. He was General Secretary the Great or, if you will, the Terrible. He dug canals and built cities, he defeated enemies and punished villains.

He was replaced by Khrushchev,General Cecretary the Stupid . He hauled garbage to the grave of the Great and pounded by his boot on the UN podium.

Brezhnev came after him, General Secretary the Good. He made ​​his people strong outside and weak inside.

Then came Andropov, General Secretary the Stern. He commanded not to go in film during the working day and wanted to know what kind of society we have built.

The next was Chernenko , General Secretary the Poor. He was a loner and he died soon.

The last one was Gorbachev, General Secretary the Bloody.He was very like the last Russian emperor.

Both - the General Secretary and the Emperor - loved themselves most of all and gravitated towards liberalism.

The Emperor wrote manifestos and gave freedom. There appeared a wide variety of unions, which generated mandates.Under the General Secretary the whole country, too, wrote programs, and people had to choose the best while the new bourgeoise was checking their pockets.

The Emperor lost two wars and was fond of Germans.The General Secretary lost everything up to underpants and was fond of Germans,Americans and all others who were west of the Soviet border.

The Emperor was henpecked,his wife was the real ruler of Russia.The General Secretary was henpecked,too.His wife tought ministers how to work.

The Emperor fled from his post in Febriary 1917, having left Russia to its fate.The General Secretary fled from his post in December 1991,having left the USSR to it's fate.After them both Russia was washed with blood and tears.

But there is one difference between them:the Emperor was shot for his deeds but the General Secretary is still alive.However,he is only 80,everything is in future!So,we are waiting.

[bezdomni]

I am just joking,its obvious that people here don't know much about Andropov or Chernenko,so they naturally didn't vote for them.;)

Don't blame me, I voted for Andropov!

[Omsk]

The next was Chernenko , General Secretary the Poor. He was a loner and he died soon.
:( This line is really depressing..

[Tommy4ever]

How lyrical Born in the USSR.

Mabye we should all form our posts in the style of epic poetry. :thumbup1:

[Andropov]

I look at the consequences of actions, to me a social democracy is far more superior than a bureaucratic welfare state. Despite the obvious disadvantages for social democracy. I don't agree with Perestroika either, its inevitably lead to fall of the SU. However, I don't think thats what Gorbachev intended it to do.
Oh jesus.
Im not getting into a debate about what to define the USSR as, whether the trendy leftists want to refer to it as a bureaucratic welfare state or as state capitalist etc.
But to suggest a Social Democratic society is more progressive than the model used by the USSR is beyond belief.
The figures and facts speak for themselves, the USSR's standard of living, the education, the aid for third world countries, the counter weight to western imperialism and the eradication of private capital etc. To think that these achievements could have been gained with Social Democracy boggles the mind, if it were Social Democrats ruling the USSR from the turn of the century instead of the Soviets it would still be a third world country of that I have no doubt.
Social Democrats would not have been capable of industrialising the USSR, they would not have been able to defeat the NAZI's, the whole country would have been ravaged and any little infrastructure would have been decemated. Seeing as it was overwhelmingly the Soviets involvement in WW2 which contributed to the NAZI defeat it is very possible that with the USSR over run by the NAZI's that the Allies would eventually have come to a truce with the NAZI's. Not only would Europe be under the dark cloud of facism but also vast swathes of Asia would also be under Japanese imperialism.
It just boggles the mind how anyone could possibly state that Social Democracy would have been more progressive in the USSR than the economic system they did adopt.

I don't care if fascists can have their voice be heard, freedom of the press should be essential in a socialist country.
It gets worse.
There is no such thing as 'freedom of the press'.
The press is only as free as the man who writes the cheques lets it be.
Essentially the press is a glorified mouthpiece of private capital and Gorbachev helped facilitate this organ of private capital to undermine worker consciousness and advance the ideology of private capital along with reactionary and backward ideologys such as Nationalism and Religion.
Liberal hogwash.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can't decide between the guy who re-introduced Capitalism in the 1920s, the guy under whose rule a huge amount of people died, the guy who started a nuclear arms race, the guy who oversaw one of the worst and most prolonged stagnations in modern memory or the guy who ultimately restored Capitalism.:rolleyes:

It's not a great question, really, if we're being serious. Only a social historian, the most un-marxist of historians, would place their conclusions on a period of history in the hands of how one 'ruler' performed. The truth is a lot more complicated and so its really difficult to give any kind of simplistic answer to this simplistic question.

[Born in the USSR]

I can't decide between the guy who re-introduced Capitalism in the 1920s....or the guy who ultimately restored Capitalism.

I wonder,how anybody could restored capitalism ( the dude means 1991 ), if it was already re-introduced in 1920s? :laugh:Really,antistalinist,finishing a prase,do not remember what did they write at the begining of this phrase!:laugh:

[pranabjyoti]

I wonder,how anybody could restored capitalism ( the dude mean 1991 ), if it was already re-introduced in 1920s? :laugh:Really,antistalinist,finishing the prase,do not remember what did they write at the begining of this phrase!:laugh:
That's their basic charactaristics! Thanks for defining.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I wonder,how anybody could restored capitalism ( the dude means 1991 ), if it was already re-introduced in 1920s? :laugh:Really,antistalinist,finishing a prase,do not remember what did they write at the begining of this phrase!:laugh:

Was the NEP a capitalist retreat?

Did Gorbachev re-introduce Capitalism?

Stop being pathetic and accept that some Socialists can be non-Leninists, you sectarian tool.

[Ismail]

Was the NEP a capitalist retreat?It didn't alter the dictatorship of the proletariat. Foreign trade remained a monopoly of the state, among other things. Lenin saw the NEP as a temporary measure, and it was indeed put to an end by the early 30's under Stalin.

[Ocean Seal]

I personally voted for Brezhnev because I think that his poor economic policies were what led to the structural weakening of the Soviet Union, and I personally think that while he might not have intended for this he is responsible. However, it was Gorbachev who collapsed the USSR. That being said I can't imagine anyone worse than Gorbachev besides the post USSR leaders. But I don't really consider Gorbachev a leader of the Soviet Union and more or less a leader of Western interests. So I go with the next worst choice of Brezhnev.

I really don't understand where all the hate for Stalin comes from though. What he did was really based on circumstances and I don't think that any premier would have been able to succeed if they had acted differently. I say this and, I'm not even a Hoxhaist, in fact I have significant ideological sympathies for Trotskyism and Council Communism :ohmy:.

So here are my ratings.
Lenin: 8.3
Withstood imperial invasion, supported anti-imperialist groups, established certain freedoms for the Soviet people. And had the Soviet Union survive. Not enough worker's representation though, disestablishment of certain institutions were not necessary, certainly needed better dealing with the peasantry.
Stalin: 7.8
Had to deal with a lot of shit. I don't really know how he did it all, but for what its worth, it was done. Reinstated some freedoms, opposed imperialism, and built political ties. And when he was done with the USSR it emerged from a pre-industrial society into a US competitor. The Soviet people had more than they had ever had before and he arguably saved the lives of very many by building up the USSR as a front against imperialism. I think that China and Korea would have been destroyed entirely by the imperialists if it weren't for the USSR's military presence and of course their acquisition of nuclear weapons being that the US had a plan to use nuclear weapons on the yellow river. Also in part I agree with his rejection of internationalism on principle. That was a good call on his part and probably the most important place where I agree with him over Trotsky. On the negative side, he didn't lend enough aid to the Turkish and Greek communists (yes I know what I just said about internationalism). Even less worker representation. Political repression was fairly intense and of course purges were not necessary and had negative results.
Khrushchev: 6.6
I'm not sure if I'm being fair here as I really don't know all that much about the man. Mainly that he tried to destroy the Stalin personality cult and is accused to pursuing some neoliberal reforms. However, he was probably better than Beria would have been. He was also somewhat poor in diplomacy and that really showed with the Sino-Soviet split.
Brezhnev: 6.0
Tried and failed
Andropov: 7.2
From what the user "Andropov" said, he sounds like a pretty cool guy
Chernenko: N/A
All I know is that he was a leader
Gorbachev:-9000
Obvious reasons

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It didn't alter the dictatorship of the proletariat. Foreign trade remained a monopoly of the state, among other things. Lenin saw the NEP as a temporary measure, and it was indeed put to an end by the early 30's under Stalin.

I'm not passing judgement on the NEP. I'd probably have supported it at the time myself, it was largely necessary due to the material conditions of the time.

I was merely objecting at the treatment given to a clearly off-hand remark I made about Lenin and the NEP, by the usual Stalinist lobby.

[Geiseric]

lol'd at poll results

[Born in the USSR]

I'm not passing judgement on the NEP. I'd probably have supported it at the time myself, it was largely necessary due to the material conditions of the time.

Splendid.And previously the dude wrote the following:


I can't decide between the guy who re-introduced Capitalism in the 1920s or the guy who ultimately restored Capitalism.

It turnes out that he is not passing judgement on the restoration of capitalism in 1991,too,and he probably have supported it at the time himself, becouse "it was largely necessary due to the material conditions of the time."

But I'm not sure that he understood himself what he has written himself.:)

Those antistalinists! :laugh:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you'd read my previous post, you'd have seen that I said that the original post was 'clearl off-hand', which it was.

You guys really aren't interested in getting popular support for Socialism, are you? What sort of batshit insane attitude is it, that you instantly dive on anything somebody says that isn't 100% in line with your own beliefs, and bring out the old 'CAPITALIST LIBERAL TROT ANTISTALINIST UNMARXIST' crap.

Why don't you just accept that there are genuine Socialists out there who don't agree with Stalin, Lenin or ergo the Soviet Union?

Thankfully, you lot will die well and truly in the dustbin of history. You're a fucking disgrace to my movement.

[Omsk]

Why don't you just accept that there are genuine Socialists out there who don't agree with Stalin, Lenin or ergo the Soviet Union?

Thankfully, you lot will die well and truly in the dustbin of history. You're a fucking disgrace to my movement.

Genuine western liberal socialist!Nice one.
And sure,liberal leftists don't like ML's.

[pranabjyoti]

Thankfully, you lot will die well and truly in the dustbin of history. You're a fucking disgrace to my movement.
You better wait there for us. What I fear is that you have wait tooooooooooooooooooooooooo long.:laugh:

[dernier combat]

Genuine western liberal socialist!Nice one.
And sure,liberal leftists don't like ML's.
You should probably substantiate your claims that Granma is a liberal.

You know, so you don't continue to come across as a worthless fucking pillock.

[Tommy4ever]

Genuine western liberal socialist!Nice one.
And sure,liberal leftists don't like ML's.

Now come on.

Like it or not its not just a 'liberal' thing to have a problem with millions of deaths and extreme political repression. It should be a socialist thing too.

[Omsk]

I understand if he is against Stalin,but you clearly missed this part:


Lenin or ergo the Soviet Union?

[dernier combat]

I understand if he is against Stalin,but you clearly missed this part:
shock horror: some people don't consider the USSR at any point in its history to have been socialist

[Omsk]

shock horror: some people don't consider the USSR at any point in its history to have been socialist

Oh i didn't know! "some people" point out that in every damn post about the USSR,just spiting and spiting.

It had flaws,but it was socialist,you can keep dreaming about a perfect communist society that will never exist,i wont.

[Tommy4ever]

I understand if he is against Stalin,but you clearly missed this part:

Well, calling Lenin the worst Soviet leader is obviously pretty foolish. But there are plenty of good points on which Lenin can be criticised and he definately didn't do everything perfectly.

Are you really suprised that Anarchists dislike him considering what Lenin did to Anarchist movements?

[Tommy4ever]

It had flaws,but it was socialist,you can keep dreaming about a perfect communist society that will never exist,i wont.

Now you see the problem here is that the word socialist means that the workers controlled the means of production. Although there was a brief attempt to give workers control over industry in the early days of the Bolshevik regime they would never again hold the means of production. Unless you consider the Leninist state an extension of the working class then the Soviet Union can't be considered socialist. So if you consider the Soviet state an extension of the proletariat, fine, call the USSR socialist. If someone else doesn't then respect that its a pretty vague and theoretical point.

[Omsk]

Are you really suprised that Anarchists dislike him considering what Lenin did to Anarchist movements?

Well what are they doing in a thread about the USSR and its leaders!They should just vote if they are against a leader,and it should be sufficient,how would they like if i would go into a thread and start screaming something negative about the Spanish anarchists,i would probably get an infraction or something,for trying to start a flame war or something.

[dernier combat]

Well what are they doing in a thread about the USSR and its leaders!
Because it concerns the historical conditions of the working class.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I understand if he is against Stalin,but you clearly missed this part:

So anybody who disagreed with Lenin or the USSR is a liberal who, according to your lots previous form, should be shot as a counter-revolutionary?

Nice.

[Omsk]

So anybody who disagreed with Lenin or the USSR is a liberal who, according to your lots previous form, should be shot as a counter-revolutionary?

No,of course not.

[pranabjyoti]

The USSR during Stalin was the best that can be achieved by proletariat at that time. Our armchair critics just doing just "talk and talk" but can not build anything better so far. I AM SURE THEY CAN NOT EVEN IN DISTANT FUTURE.

[Kuppo Shakur]

:bored:
Trash.
Please.
Hey, why doesn't anyone ever listen to me?
I come to RevLeft because it tends to be the most intelligent place to discuss things on the whole internets, but then I see shit like this thread.:(

[∞]

The USSR during Stalin was the best that can be achieved by proletariat at that time. Our armchair critics just doing just "talk and talk" but can not build anything better so far. I AM SURE THEY CAN NOT EVEN IN DISTANT FUTURE.


A Stalinist's way of changing the nature of the argument when they can't disprove negative statements about their dear leader.

Durruti, the CNT, Makhno, amongst many others... were not "armchair revolutionaries." We look to them for inspiration.

[Decommissioner]

Oh i didn't know! "some people" point out that in every damn post about the USSR,just spiting and spiting.

It had flaws,but it was socialist,you can keep dreaming about a perfect communist society that will never exist,i wont.

I don't really understand this attitude. Why must the past be repeated? Even you admit the SU wasn't perfect, why not keep the proven good aspects of the SU and strive for even better, to iron out the imperfections? Even if it seems impossible. We shouldn't settle for less if we are striving for communism.

[Tommy4ever]

I come to RevLeft because it tends to be the most intelligent place to discuss things on the whole internets, but then I see shit like this thread.:(

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Don't believe you.

[Omsk]

A Stalinist's way of changing the nature of the argument when they can't disprove negative statements about their dear leader.
No it's actually the other way around,you anti Stalinists resort to changing the subject and being vulgar,because in most cases,you don't know your facts.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Do you care to substantiate that claim, that in most cases, non-Stalinists don't know the facts?

No, you can't, because it's silly, juvenile, emotive rubbish that has no meaning, just like when you call dedicated, genuine Socialists like myself 'liberals', or whatever insult is flavour of the month.:rolleyes:

[Omsk]

nah actually I can,I will quote tomorrow,I'm on my mobile phone right now,so I cant really type much,but I will give you 4-5 out of the head examples - someone claimed that Stalin didn't visit the front,I proved him wrong,someone claimed that Stalin supported Hitler,I proved him wrong,someone claimed that the SU didn't make preparations for ww2,someone claimed that the red army was badly organized,I proved them wrong.It's hard for me to type on my mobile phone so I will type a longer response later.

[Born in the USSR]

A Stalinist's way of changing the nature of the argument when they can't disprove negative statements about their dear leader.

Durruti, the CNT, Makhno, amongst many others... were not "armchair revolutionaries." We look to them for inspiration.

It's funny that anarchists killed their dear leader Durruti.Now they look to him with crocodile tears for inspiration.

[Born in the USSR]

shock horror: some people don't consider the USSR at any point in its history to have been socialist

shock horror:these people cannot distinctly explain why do they think so.94 visitors read my blog and nobody said anything against it.Certainly,to parrot "the USSR was not socialist" is easier than to prove it.

[Kuppo Shakur]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Don't believe you.
Prove me wrong, BRUH.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I voted for Khrushchev since I think that's the start of the USSR's downward spiral, should have voted Gorbachev though, he was the final nail in the coffin.

[dernier combat]

The USSR during Stalin was the best that can be achieved by proletariat at that time. Our armchair critics just doing just "talk and talk" but can not build anything better so far. I AM SURE THEY CAN NOT EVEN IN DISTANT FUTURE.
The USSR was not a product of working-class revolution. It was a product of the rise to power of the nomenklatura (composed of senior Bolsheviks) and their middle-class counterparts which helped to maintain their rule, the apparatchiki. Thus, it was not an "achievement of the proletariat", but it did certainly grant more benefits, concessions, welfare, etc. to the working class.

If you hadn't realized, you're also an "armchair revolutionary". Anarchists, etc. aren't going to "build socialism". That will be the job of the proletariat as a whole, waging class warfare.

[dernier combat]

It had flaws,but it was socialist,
Substantiate this assertion. To be socialist (assuming you're not just implying some society based around an obscure sort of mode of production between capitalism and communism which was never specified by Marx), workers must democratically control production, as well as the general administration of society.

[dernier combat]

shock horror:these people cannot distinctly explain why do they think so.94 visitors read my blog and nobody said anything against it.Certainly,to parrot "the USSR was not socialist" is easier than to prove it.
Probably no-one comments on blog posts because discussion tends to move very slowly.

[Andropov]

I don't really understand this attitude. Why must the past be repeated? Even you admit the SU wasn't perfect, why not keep the proven good aspects of the SU and strive for even better, to iron out the imperfections? Even if it seems impossible. We shouldn't settle for less if we are striving for communism.
This is spot on, it was Lenin himself who stated that the greatest barometer of a Marxist movement was how they conducted self criticism with regards to their own mistakes.

[Heathen Communist]

They all made some really bad mistakes that resulted in a police state that eventually dissolved into weak fringe countries. Overall, Lenin was good, but he made a few rather bad mistakes. Stalin did what he had to in World War II, but he was a terrible civilian leader. The rest were professional politicians and bureaucrats whose decisions were largely pointless and non-revolutionary.
We should learn from their mistakes.

[Ismail]

I don't really understand this attitude. Why must the past be repeated? Even you admit the SU wasn't perfect, why not keep the proven good aspects of the SU and strive for even better, to iron out the imperfections? Even if it seems impossible. We shouldn't settle for less if we are striving for communism.This will happen by default. No inane discussions about "avoiding/combating dogmatism" will bring us any closer towards ironing out those imperfections in practice.

[Wanted Man]

I want to thank whoever came up with the rating system. It's a great substitute for any political thought when you can just rate a bunch of Great Individuals on a scale from 1 to 10. What is the concrete difference between a 6 and a 6.5? God only knows.

[Coggeh]

This is spot on, it was Lenin himself who stated that the greatest barometer of a Marxist movement was how they conducted self criticism with regards to their own mistakes.
And yet, stalinists are still around...;)

[Ilyich]

They were all nothing more than state capitalists. They represented the left-wing of the capitalist-imperialist system. Stalin was a tyrant. Lenin was the only half-decent one.

[pranabjyoti]

The USSR was not a product of working-class revolution. It was a product of the rise to power of the nomenklatura (composed of senior Bolsheviks) and their middle-class counterparts which helped to maintain their rule, the apparatchiki. Thus, it was not an "achievement of the proletariat", but it did certainly grant more benefits, concessions, welfare, etc. to the working class.
I am curious to know about the definition of your "middle class". To many callous people, "worker" and "poor" are just synonymous. And which class those senior Bolsheviks represent?
Do you have any idea that even the Paris commune have their leaders coming from "middle class" as per your terminology?

If you hadn't realized, you're also an "armchair revolutionary". Anarchists, etc. aren't going to "build socialism". That will be the job of the proletariat as a whole, waging class warfare.
Well anarchists, bolsheviks i.e. Marxist-Leninists have some kind of class basis and they are part of a class, not something having roots floating in thin air.

[Ismail]

Stalin was a tyrant. Lenin was the only half-decent one.I don't see how you can call Stalin a "tyrant" (which is a stupid word to use in any case) and Lenin "half-decent." In the 1970's and 80's Molotov (who worked with both) insisted that Lenin was more "severe" than Stalin was, and according to Molotov Lenin even told Stalin that, "What kind of a [class] dictatorship do we have? We have a milk-and-honey power, and not a dictatorship!" Molotov also said that, "He ordered the suppression of the Tambov uprising, that everything be burned to the ground. I was present at the discussion. He would not have tolerated any opposition, even had it appeared." (Molotov Remembers, p. 107.) Books like The Unknown Lenin certainly show that you can make an argument that he was a little less "tyrannical" than Stalin.

Stalin initially had a reputation as a fairly forgiving man up until after Kirov was assassinated.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Oh, great...The leader of the main force that stopped the Nazis was voted second. :closedeyes:

[∞]

Oh, great...The leader of the main force that stopped the Nazis was voted second. :closedeyes:

Derp. Eventhough he committed military blunders and the commanders and soldiers were the main force that defeated fascism derp, attribute that one man...Stalin. Fuck the sacrifice of the Soviet proletariat, it was all just Stalin.:rolleyes:

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Derp. Eventhough he committed military blunders and the commanders and soldiers were the main force that defeated fascism derp, attribute that one man...Stalin. Fuck the sacrifice of the Soviet proletariat, it was all just Stalin.:rolleyes:

Right there. As much as I know you'd love to just blame everything bad that ever happened on Stalin, unfortunately for you though if you're gonna hold him responsible for those military blunders you also have to hold him responsible for the massive military successes later on in the war.

Also, as others have said on here, "it was the German soldiers and commanders who killed all the Jews and Slavs, not Hitler. Hitler didn't do anything himself personally." :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Derp. Eventhough he committed military blunders and the commanders and soldiers were the main force that defeated fascism derp, attribute that one man...Stalin. Fuck the sacrifice of the Soviet proletariat, it was all just Stalin.:rolleyes:Who says Stalin personally defeated the Nazis with his bare hands? Attacking Stalin's role in the war is something the Khrushchev leadership did. Khrushchev even claimed (with no basis in fact) that Stalin planned military operations on a globe.

Biographers, even hostile ones like Deutscher, note the importance Stalin had on the war effort. Are we to assume that Trotsky had no role in winning the Russian Civil War? Fulanito said in his post that Stalin was the leader of the main force that defeated Nazism. I don't see why that isn't true.

I also don't see why committing some military mistakes makes someone bad at war. Napoléon obviously made pretty big blunders (much worse than Stalin), but that does suddenly mean he was an idiot and that every victory can solely be attributed to his soldiers? Was Tukhachevsky a terrible commander because Poland didn't fall to the Red Army?

[pranabjyoti]

Oh, great...The leader of the main force that stopped the Nazis was voted second. :closedeyes:
Actually this thread is a good example of about the level of "consciousness" of English speaking "socialist minded" scums. Most probably, from their very entry to School, they are so much brainwashed that they rarely have the ability to understand the reality of the world. NOT VERY SURPRISING TO ME.

[LewisQ]

I hope that advances in cloning technology under communism will one day help us to settle this issue definitively with a USSR'S WORST LEADER TV special.

"Day 52, and Joe is threatening to purge the bathroom committee because they keep leaving towels on the floor".


Actually this thread is a good example of about the level of "consciousness" of English speaking "socialist minded" scums. Most probably, from their very entry to School, they are so much brainwashed that they rarely have the ability to understand the reality of the world. NOT VERY SURPRISING TO ME.

Pranabjyoti, I respect that you have fundamental and irreconcilable ideological differences with political currents in the Anglophone world, but doesn't it strike you that referring to comrades as "scum" on the basis of where they come from is a bit, well, racist?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I think the point is that those he's referring to aren't "comrades"

[red1987]

ok some people said that gorby was a good capitalist...i'd say that he was a good CIA agent ..he did his job very good... and about the others :
lenin:not good not bad...could be better...i mean his hatred to the anarchists and to anyone anticapitalist-anticarist who didn't belong to the bolshevik's party was kinda overdosed..
stalin:more hatred even to the members of the party...which was result of the contioues fear of losing his power...inndustrializing, with big suffers to the people ,though..the only good i can think of is the way he handled the situation in the difficult ww2 hour...
kchruchev:just ambitious dumpass nothing more nothing less ..just an idiot
breznev:he saved somehow the country from hruchev's idiocy ....his biggest mistake was the way he handled the situation in afghanistan...it was really naive of him to believe that the americans would just sit and watch him doing his "job" in afghanistan..
adropov:could be good if he came much more earlier
chernenko:cannot be judged for obvious reasons...that's all i think...and my vote goes to the gorbypig