The Bolsheviks' Playoffs started already in the 1920's

[Jopa79]

Mikhail Frunze was a Bolshevik leader and had a major role in the early years of the Red Army.

A campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union (the Great Purge) occurred from 1936 to 1938 and it's largely associated with Stalinism. However, 'cleansing of the party ranks' among the Communist Party of the Soviet Union began already in the 1920's. This ritual was conducted by the other party members to get rid of the 'undesirables'.

The man in the picture, Mikhail Frunze was a Bolshevik leader during the Russian Revolution in 1917 and a commander in the Russian Civil War. Frunze was probably plotted because of his skills and capabilities. He was noted by the other communist leaders as being very creative in his implementations and policy. Militarily he was fearless and successful and gained respect and admiration. Having the strength in theoretical and practical manners and lacking the personal ambitions separate from the party gave him a lift in the Communist party agenda and Frunze was considered as a potential successor for Lenin.

Frunze died on stomach ulcer, but the events are shadowed by ambiguous circumstances. Frunze had been admitted to a hospital due to his suffering. Still, he wrote a letter to home and told he was feeling absolutely healthy and there was no need for an operation. However, Stalin and Mikoyan came a visit to him and impressed the need for an operation.

Frunze died in this surgery but it's revealed that he was administered a chloroform dose that seven times exceeded the normal dose to induce narcosis.

 

[Calad]

The worse enemy of leftie is another leftie.

And what all lefties hate with passion is competence. Therefore you have to destroy any competent party member so they wont threat your power. People outside of your party who are competence are either fascist or greedy capitalist.

This is the reason why all socialist goverments eventually collapse. Pressure from the top to promote mediacore ideas and pressure from the below to undermine the system in the most efficient way will do it every time.

 

[Yakman]

The worse enemy of leftie is another leftie.

And what all lefties hate with passion is competence. Therefore you have to destroy any competent party member so they wont threat your power. People outside of your party who are competence are either fascist or greedy capitalist.

This is the reason why all socialist goverments eventually collapse. Pressure from the top to promote mediacore ideas and pressure from the below to undermine the system in the most efficient way will do it every time.

You are confusing leftism with all of human behavior.

There is a sociology concept called the iron law of organizations.

I may be misquoting it, but essentially it is that people act in a manner to defend their status in organizations that they belong to, and they try to advance their standing in that organization.

This goes from governments to families to businesses, the whole gamut.

My favorite example is Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq. Bush told him that he and his family could leave and that if he stayed, he and them would be targeted by the Coalition.

Yet he stayed.

A guy who presumably had billions in overseas accounts, could have lived his life happily beside a swimming pool in Syria. He died in a ditch.

You could say the same thing about Kaddafi.

As far as murdering to get ahead, there are long and storied histories of that in medieval Europe. Charles the Bad tried to murder multiple French Kings to skip ahead in succession order. He was hardly a leftist.

People are people. They act in the same way given the same circumstances, although not all of us are as bloodthirsty as Stalin or Hussein or Charles the Bad.

 

[Calad]

You are confusing leftism with all of human behavior.

There is a sociology concept called the iron law of organizations.

I may be misquoting it, but essentially it is that people act in a manner to defend their status in organizations that they belong to, and they try to advance their standing in that organization.

This goes from governments to families to businesses, the whole gamut.

My favorite example is Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq. Bush told him that he and his family could leave and that if he stayed, he and them would be targeted by the Coalition.

Yet he stayed.

A guy who presumably had billions in overseas accounts, could have lived his life happily beside a swimming pool in Syria. He died in a ditch.

You could say the same thing about Kaddafi.

As far as murdering to get ahead, there are long and storied histories of that in medieval Europe. Charles the Bad tried to murder multiple French Kings to skip ahead in succession order. He was hardly a leftist.

People are people. They act in the same way given the same circumstances, although not all of us are as bloodthirsty as Stalin or Hussein or Charles the Bad.

Yeah in my family business I tried to murder all my competitors as well troublesome members. Perfectly normal.

In socialism you have no accountability because every socialist country ends up in dictatorship. If you have enough power nobody can do anything to you, just look pedofile-Beria and all the bones they recently dug up from his garden.

You post is a good example how confused you are, what is common with French kings, Stalin, Hussein, investor bankers and family business? Totally nuts.

 

[John the John]

View attachment 467866
Mikhail Frunze was a Bolshevik leader and had a major role in the early years of the Red Army.

A campaign of political repression in the Soviet Union (the Great Purge) occurred from 1936 to 1938 and it's largely associated with Stalinism. However, 'cleansing of the party ranks' among the Communist Party of the Soviet Union began already in the 1920's. This ritual was conducted by the other party members to get rid of the 'undesirables'.

The man in the picture, Mikhail Frunze was a Bolshevik leader during the Russian Revolution in 1917 and a commander in the Russian Civil War. Frunze was probably plotted because of his skills and capabilities. He was noted by the other communist leaders as being very creative in his implementations and policy. Militarily he was fearless and successful and gained respect and admiration. Having the strength in theoretical and practical manners and lacking the personal ambitions separate from the party gave him a lift in the Communist party agenda and Frunze was considered as a potential successor for Lenin.

Frunze died on stomach ulcer, but the events are shadowed by ambiguous circumstances. Frunze had been admitted to a hospital due to his suffering. Still, he wrote a letter to home and told he was feeling absolutely healthy and there was no need for an operation. However, Stalin and Mikoyan came a visit to him and impressed the need for an operation.

Frunze died in this surgery but it's revealed that he was administered a chloroform dose that seven times exceeded the normal dose to induce narcosis.

Oh great! A discussion about communist repressions! I'm sure that won't turn into a flame war. Well, let's see how long this thread stays unlocked

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

The worse enemy of leftie is another leftie.

You probably confuse leftist with people that got their opportunity to work for the winning side. Dictatorships attract incompetent people - regardless of the "side".
French revolution "leftists" where just people that wanted "change" opposing the ones that wanted everything to stay as it is.

Most/lots/considerable amount/some "leftists" didn't expect that the "change" will attract barbarians that want to burn palaces of previous rulers.

It's happening all over again. Even here (Poland) and now, there are many people that got positions they'd never get if competency/experience was the only/major factor.

And what all lefties hate with passion is competence

Same here - it's not about generic feature of "leftists". Same can be said about "rightists".

As I said - it's not about being leftist (or rightist) it's about "attaching" incompetent, mindless opportunists to the wave that's sweeping old order. Bolsheviks took Marx theory and changed the "dictatorship of proletariat" into "dictatorship of the party", because there was no proletariat in 1917 Russia. Way too many of people where farmers/peasants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_ref-kenez_5-1).

It was the party (Bolsheviks) that hate competence, not the left ideologists.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Thread not about interwar Russian football, disappointed.

 

[Jopa79]

Sorry, not a football thread...that's another story. Just the political 'playoffs' ...But you can read about Soviet football here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_national_football_team

 

[Sarmatia1871]

The photograph of the 1927 Soviet football team raises so many questions I do not know where to begin.

 

[Calad]

You probably confuse leftist with people that got their opportunity to work for the winning side. Dictatorships attract incompetent people - regardless of the "side".
French revolution "leftists" where just people that wanted "change" opposing the ones that wanted everything to stay as it is.

Most/lots/considerable amount/some "leftists" didn't expect that the "change" will attract barbarians that want to burn palaces of previous rulers.

It's happening all over again. Even here (Poland) and now, there are many people that got positions they'd never get if competency/experience was the only/major factor.

Winning side always attracts opportunist, but what I meant that even if you align ideologically perfectly, there is still very high chance you will be purged. This is what happened to almost every old bolsheviks. Socialism is a totalitarian ideology, and naturally there can be only one top dog in such a system.

A good example is modern feminism (if you take it as a left-ideology). They are all smiles and sisters but when it comes to power all gloves are off.

The reason why this happens always with leftist, why they attract barbarians, is because they cannot be wrong. Because they cannot be wrong, the most ruthless person will prevail. Feminist dont really discuss problems of their ideology, Leninist did but then Stalin put an end of that nonsense.

Same here - it's not about generic feature of "leftists". Same can be said about "rightists".

As I said - it's not about being leftist (or rightist) it's about "attaching" incompetent, mindless opportunists to the wave that's sweeping old order. Bolsheviks took Marx theory and changed the "dictatorship of proletariat" into "dictatorship of the party", because there was no proletariat in 1917 Russia. Way too many of people where farmers/peasants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_ref-kenez_5-1).

It was the party (Bolsheviks) that hate competence, not the left ideologists.

Right! = capitalism, individualism
Left! = socialism, collectivism

Now I dont know what you mean by rightist. I think Facism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies, to make this clear. Some right wing dictatorships were collectivist (nationalism), but not socialist (peasants could own land). This is the major difference.

If you were the best farmer in socialist system, well you clearly exploited someone, or you met your quota too early and couldnt profit from it. In capitalist system, sure you might be very poor by our standards, but you could improve legally your status by yourself, which was not possible in socialist systems.

 

[Jopa79]

Interesting neck opening

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

Socialism is a totalitarian ideology, and naturally there can be only one top dog in such a system.

I can agree in 100% with Soviet implementation of socialism. I'm not sure about Scandinavian version though.

A good example is modern feminism (if you take it as a left-ideology). They are all smiles and sisters but when it comes to power all gloves are off.

I'm not very familiar with this movement, so I can't express any opinion

The reason why this happens always with leftist, why they attract barbarians, is because they cannot be wrong. Because they cannot be wrong, the most ruthless person will prevail.

I think it's more about about how far one positions from the center. Poland is ruled now by conservatives / right wing / catholic / nationalist / reactionary party. But they use socialistic means of gaining power - by increasing the public debt and giving people money in the light of "decreasing the gap". And this whole against elites attitude is similar to what happened after 1917. And it's exactly as you said with about they cannot be wrong and ruthless persons. But about "right".

Right! = capitalism, individualism

Really? Capitalism is indeed the reverse of socialism (generally). But I'm not sure if "right == individualism" is correct statement. It was the case with liberalism after 1789 and capitalism stems from liberalism. But I think "right" is more about preserving what you/nation/group have/has (which is to some degree positive aspect) and when pushing to limits, changes into fascism with all these external, imaginary enemies that "take our land".

There are different aspects of right and left and usually the original meanings from French revolution are no longer valid.

What I want to say is that both "left" (socialists, anti-capitalist) and "right" (conservative, anti-socialist) has some "good" ideas underneath (socialism: share with others, conservative: mind the values). But as always, implementations are infected by the barbarians who performed them.
Note that I didn't attach "capitalism" to either of left/right. It's rather ideology agnostic, and "feels good" when working not far from the "center" (in both directions).

Now I dont know what you mean by rightist. I think Facism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies, to make this clear.

NSDAP has "National Socialist" in full name, so it's "left", but it's also symbol of farthest "right" if you ask around.

 

[Calad]

I can agree in 100% with Soviet implementation of socialism. I'm not sure about Scandinavian version though.

They have large scale state programs that has been succesfull because of religious and cultural unity. It is much more easier to make, for example, basic schooling for everybody when everybody has same religious and cultural background. Small population also helps. Much of rest of the world isnt like this.

I think it's more about about how far one positions from the center. Poland is ruled now by conservatives / right wing / catholic / nationalist / reactionary party. But they use socialistic means of gaining power - by increasing the public debt and giving people money in the light of "decreasing the gap". And this whole against elites attitude is similar to what happened after 1917. And it's exactly as you said with about they cannot be wrong and ruthless persons. But about "right".

Right also has its collective form. Poland is a good example because of strong church. But generally speaking right wing parties want to reduce goverment spending and social programs, because they want lower taxes. Now this is all super confusing and complicated because of voting blocks. In UK pension is a huge issue so both parties want to keep good pensions up to gain votes, no matter how unrealistic this is.

About Polish budget, I dont really know what you are talking about. Polish deficit has never been this small before:
https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/government-budget

Really? Capitalism is indeed the reverse of socialism (generally). But I'm not sure if "right == individualism" is correct statement. It was the case with liberalism after 1789 and capitalism stems from liberalism. But I think "right" is more about preserving what you/nation/group have/has (which is to some degree positive aspect) and when pushing to limits, changes into fascism with all these external, imaginary enemies that "take our land".

There are different aspects of right and left and usually the original meanings from French revolution are no longer valid.

What I want to say is that both "left" (socialists, anti-capitalist) and "right" (conservative, anti-socialist) has some "good" ideas underneath (socialism: share with others, conservative: mind the values). But as always, implementations are infected by the barbarians who performed them.
Note that I didn't attach "capitalism" to either of left/right. It's rather ideology agnostic, and "feels good" when working not far from the "center" (in both directions).

Yes, this is confusing indeed. Right means different parties and values in different times, in different countries. When I am speaking about right, I am speaking more of liberal version of it. This is what right is in UK and US. In eastern europe right is strong state, strong family and strong religion. There is less room for individual, but it is not forbidden to be individual as in socialism.

Socialism is always anti-capitalist, because there is no private property nor profit. It is as simple as that. If you have an axe, and you make profit for selling firewood, you are capitalist. In socialism state takes away your axe and your wood and forces you to work in pig farm, so socialism is not about sharing either but stealing and slaving. In socialist countries there also has been strong values, but for the benefit of state.

NSDAP has "National Socialist" in full name, so it's "left", but it's also symbol of farthest "right" if you ask around.

It also has socialist, so that really doesnt prove anything.

If you look Nazi partys 25 point program, you notice that after point 8 all demands are indeed socialist. Points 11-21 especially. They could have come from Stalin as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

Nazis is socialism. Instead of social classes it is about racial classes, so it is racist socialism. They have red flag for socialism, white ring for nationalism and swatica for aryan race.

TIK made a very good video about it:

Reason why this was "hidden" for so long was because of USSR. It would be a bit embarassing for them to be compared to Nazis.

 

[yerm]

True fascism has not been tried!

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

But generally speaking right wing parties want to reduce goverment spending and social programs, because they want lower taxes.

In this classical sense, I fully agree. "right" vs. "left" means "less taxes, less public transfers" vs. "more taxes, more public transfers". Clear.

About Polish budget, I dont really know what you are talking about. Polish deficit has never been this small before:
https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/government-budget

You didn't read what happened last Saturday: https://www.polska-ie.com/polish-pm-vows-to-strive-for-deficit-below-eu-cap/. They announced so many new transfers (before EU election and parliament election) that the lowest (indeed) deficit will be very short phenomenon. Minister of finance declared her resignation after the announcement (not accepted by prime minister - it'd be huge problem to find new minister and explain it to the voters).

Yes, this is confusing indeed. Right means different parties and values in different times, in different countries. When I am speaking about right, I am speaking more of liberal version of it. This is what right is in UK and US. In eastern europe right is strong state, strong family and strong religion. There is less room for individual, but it is not forbidden to be individual as in socialism.

Socialism is always anti-capitalist, because there is no private property nor profit. It is as simple as that. If you have an axe, and you make profit for selling firewood, you are capitalist. In socialism state takes away your axe and your wood and forces you to work in pig farm, so socialism is not about sharing either but stealing and slaving. In socialist countries there also has been strong values, but for the benefit of state.

So we're on the same page. But I think you're talking about "right" in less radical (and more XIX century), economic form, but treat "left" as very radical. Far right and far left are in fact very similar in many areas in practice (but not in initial assumptions of course).
Scandinavian social aspects is not about treating all axe owners as filthy capitalists
I could agree with how you perceive Lenin/Stalin/Soviet version of socialism - I lived under it in Poland before 1989. It was indeed sharing the poverty...

Nazis is socialism. Instead of social classes it is about racial classes, so it is racist socialism

That makes sense in terms of fight of classes.

 

[Calad]

In this classical sense, I fully agree. "right" vs. "left" means "less taxes, less public transfers" vs. "more taxes, more public transfers". Clear.

I also agree that right and left are not valid anymore. It is more about elite vs populist. Elite wants more globalism, populist want more nationalism.

You didn't read what happened last Saturday: https://www.polska-ie.com/polish-pm-vows-to-strive-for-deficit-below-eu-cap/. They announced so many new transfers (before EU election and parliament election) that the lowest (indeed) deficit will be very short phenomenon. Minister of finance declared her resignation after the announcement (not accepted by prime minister - it'd be huge problem to find new minister and explain it to the voters).

I dont really follow Polish news (suprise).

Polish economy has been growing nicely, so I can kind of understand why they want to spend more.
But what I really understand why they have to spend more: to increase population. Something like a million Poles has emmigrated to UK alone, and this is a huge future problem. Poland doesnt want to end up like Romania (Romania will have some kind of collapse in next decade as there will be less taxpayers and more pensioners than ever before), so they have to invest on population growth and make Poland more desirable place to live.

So we're on the same page. But I think you're talking about "right" in less radical (and more XIX century), economic form, but treat "left" as very radical. Far right and far left are in fact very similar in many areas in practice (but not in initial assumptions of course).
Scandinavian social aspects is not about treating all axe owners as filthy capitalists
I could agree with how you perceive Lenin/Stalin/Soviet version of socialism - I lived under it in Poland before 1989. It was indeed sharing the poverty...

I dont think there is any point of speaking left or right without being radical, because there are so many regional and other mixtures.
Neither of them are very tolerant, open nor democratic. The difference is extend of control they want.
In Scandinavia goverment simply has a large role of regulatin economics, like in taxi or buss services. Making sure services are not too expensive but also preventing competition.

That makes sense in terms of fight of classes.

Yes, this what Hitler really was after: French are our cheesemakers, Slavic people will be slaves before Germans will replace them.

 

[Eusebio]

Right! = capitalism, individualism
Left! = socialism, collectivism

Which is why anarchists are right wing and Catholic reactionaries are left wing.

 

[Calad]

Which is why anarchists are right wing and Catholic reactionaries are left wing.

Thats a good question.

Anarchist dont fit into spectrum because they are neither capitalist or socialist, also they are neither individualistic or collectivist. They are whatever they want, hence anarchism. Pretty much only thing they can agree is that they are anarchist.

Catholic reactionaries predates political revolution that took place in France. They are feudalistic (socialism can be said to be modern feudalism, there are a lot of similarities). This is similar question like asking where does medieval guild system belong on political spectrum or hunter-gatherers. They dont, they predate it.

 

[cpreston5]

If you actually read the inteview with Hitler where he explains why they're socialist, it's hilarious. It's basically like he insists upon being socialist, whilst disavowing basically every key principle that most socialists would insist upon. I've emboldened a key part:

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

It was a propaganda move. The Nazis were their own weird syncretic blend of contradictory beliefs, and very few of them ever even bothered to delve that deeply into the nuts and bolts of their own ideology - and they knew that the masses would show even less interest in the details. Like all far-right ideologies they thrived on ambiguity and contradiction: jealous rage against intellectual and cultural superiors and arrogance towards racial inferiors, the supreme importance of the individual but also total subservience to the Volksgemeinschaft, empowerment of the woman but within a narrow idealised matrimonial role, etc. etc.

They were making it up as they went along for the most part. The name, like everything, was functional. This was a time when the word socialism had great moral force among the masses, but Germany was largely ruled by a very national-chauvinistic industrial/aristocratic class.

Ideas were far less important to the Nazis than the outcomes they sought: removal of the Jews, destruction of the workers' movements, expansion to the East.

Edit: link to the interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

 

[diegosimeone]

Socialism existed before Marx, though.