Who's better?

Who's better?

  • Total voters
    3
Mao Zedong's emphasis on the peasantry and decentralization stood in contrast to Stalin's Soviet, top down model, and lead directly to the modern success of China today when exploited by his successor Deng Xiaoping.
 
Last edited:
FACTS said:
Mao Zedong's emphasis on the peasantry and decentralization stood in contrast to Stalin's Soviet, top down model, and lead directly to the modern success of China today.
Click to expand...

RTyHhOr.jpg
 
FACTS said:
Mao Zedong's emphasis on the peasantry and decentralization stood in contrast to Stalin's Soviet, top down model, and lead directly to the modern success of China today.
Click to expand...

Zhou Enlai is responsible for the success of modern China. Once the party tried forcing Mao out (the process of which led to the Cultural Revolution, as Mao attempted to fight progress), Zhou was the only one in government able to withstand Mao's purges and succeed at moving China in the right direction.

All Mao ever did was repeat Stalin's mistakes, like collectivized agriculture (Great Blunder Forward). Stalin's agricultural policies may have been disasters, but his five year plans led to industrial growth, which helped him win WWII, and subjugate Eastern Europe afterward.
 
Last edited:
Oi gay boi
Stalin's policies were a representation of the irrationality of the 20th C. communist regimes in gen
But you you know yeah that they was the outcome of the Bukharin-Trotsky split in the Bolshevik party
Bukharin was like Europe didn't happen, Europe aint wit us
Bukharin my boi he sided with the peasantry, wanted a slowah approach, incentives my man
A Russian way to communist paradise that kept a strong Party but didn't go too fast with industrialization
Trotsky said no, no man the capitalists are'a comin
You've gotta speed it up, speed it up, take bigger percentages from the peasants
It aint Russian mah boi, so you gotta fuel those Europeans
Stalin once he put da bullet ta Bukharin and Trotski
He said, yeah bois, the capitalists are comin
They here, so you gotta speed it up, but you gotta include some'a dah capitalist mode
And you know, Russia's the shit man, we be the leader, we be the one
We got communism, we got a workers state
Yah gotta be pragmatic, keep dem capitalists away, control the sitch

635822895400295944137026509_n293a.gif
 
Stalin was a genius politician, sided with Bukharin to kill of Trotsky and the left, then went against Bukharin to kill off the right. Leaving just him.
 
FACTS said:
Stalin was a genius politician, sided with Bukharin to kill of Trotsky and the left, then went against Bukharin to kill off the right. Leaving just him.
Click to expand...

Very impressive. Kill off the two guys who, by virtue of not being him, would have done more for Russia.
 
I'm actually kind of an unusual leftist, so I'd be more inclined to say that the idea of communism itself failed more than any one leader. It was as if, I think, communists failed to divorce themselves entirely from the modes of thought - specifically the spiritualized state, as Deleuze discussed; or the reliance scientific knowledge to reveal universal truths about history - of the capitalist era. Their assumption was basically dialectic, and essentialist, because of course they had access to scientific historical truth. The contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie would lead inevitably to communism, but they ended up placing themselves.

It wasn't that this leader was better than that leader, or whatever. ((Actually, it's doubtful a truly indelible political figure has emerged in Russia since Lenin)) Rather it was that the Bolsheviks, like all the communist regimes, were dealing with an internal contradiction, between a,) that they were creating something which was basically no more than a democratic statism, and b.) their belief that they had begun creating the True and ideal end of history.
 
Rose said:
I'm actually kind of an unusual leftist, so I'd be more inclined to say that the idea of communism itself failed more than any one leader. It was as if, I think, communists failed to divorce themselves entirely from the modes of thought - specifically the spiritualized state, as Deleuze discussed; or the reliance scientific knowledge to reveal universal truths about history - of the capitalist era. Their assumption was basically dialectic, and essentialist, because of course they had access to scientific historical truth. The contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie would lead inevitably to communism, but they ended up placing themselves.

It wasn't that this leader was better than that leader, or whatever. ((Actually, it's doubtful a truly indelible political figure has emerged in Russia since Lenin)) Rather it was that the Bolsheviks, like all the communist regimes, were dealing with an internal contradiction, between a,) that they were creating something which was basically no more than a democratic statism, and b.) their belief that they had begun creating the True and ideal end of history.
Click to expand...
Or, and this is the far more likely case, they simply succumbed to the power of the State they created, like all others before them.
 
Hulagu Khan said:
Or, and this is the far more likely case, they simply succumbed to the power of the State they created, like all others before them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the thinking of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Deleuze, and the kind of thing I was trying to get at. The State, Urstaat, or the Will to Power, have been recurrent and omnipresent in human history. Communism in the 20th century had problems because, like capitalism, it was just another manifestation of that thing.
 
Mao never murdered anyone. He brought back China from the brink of dishonor and restored it to being a strong country after a century of abuse and humiliation at the hands of western imperialist powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top