Beria was executed once he was found guilty. Even his position couldn’t save him. Meanwhile, in the west, wealthy capitalists go with slaps on the wrist for making a pedophile island. That’s not even getting into the fact that Montefiore, an anti-communist propagandist that is in the Epstein files and hasn’t had access to the soviet archives is the one major source of Beria’s crimes, either way he was found guilty and executed once that was done.
As for Beria, the context was in Khrushchev’s “secret speech” and denunciations of Stalin and the Stalin administration. Much of this has been confirmed false, see Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo.
Regarding the allegations around Stalin, I’ll direct you to my response to their comment. Essentially, these claims about Stalin’s supposed pedophilia come from the very same Montefiore. Secondly, Stalin did not have anti-semitic policies (anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR). I don’t know why five year plans are a bad thing to you, having goals for a state to focus on is common practice in socialist countries, China is beginning their 15th Five Year Plan.
As for the famine in the 1930s, Stalin wasn’t punished because he did not intend to do so, and the soviets did what they could to prevent and alleviate it once it had started. The idea of an intentional famine is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the ‘revolution from above,’ rather than of a ‘successful’ nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.
Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Comrade Kosior!
You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?
Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.
Sincerely, J. Stalin
Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further.
Returning to your claims:
The communist parties that completely control a country are like any other one party state, be they Bathists, Communists, Fascists, or other they support policies that get fear and loyalty towards their great leader.
Communists are entirely different from fascists, because they establish socialist democracy and pro-social policies, while fascists do not.
The soviet union wasn’t run by a dictator. To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The soviet union did not “bleed dry” their member-states, or anyone else. As a socialist economy, it did not need to run on the same mechanisms of capital expansion the west does. Instead, all socialist countries saw dramatic growth over time, and rising key life metrics.
If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.
During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
As I explained in this comment, there’s practically no actual evidence supporting the claim that Stalin impregnated a 14 year old. Said claims come from Montefiore, who is in Epstein’s black book:
Sounds like someone doesn’t know about people like Lavrentiy Beria
Beria was executed once he was found guilty. Even his position couldn’t save him. Meanwhile, in the west, wealthy capitalists go with slaps on the wrist for making a pedophile island. That’s not even getting into the fact that Montefiore, an anti-communist propagandist that is in the Epstein files and hasn’t had access to the soviet archives is the one major source of Beria’s crimes, either way he was found guilty and executed once that was done.
Removed by mod
As for Beria, the context was in Khrushchev’s “secret speech” and denunciations of Stalin and the Stalin administration. Much of this has been confirmed false, see Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo.
Regarding the allegations around Stalin, I’ll direct you to my response to their comment. Essentially, these claims about Stalin’s supposed pedophilia come from the very same Montefiore. Secondly, Stalin did not have anti-semitic policies (anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR). I don’t know why five year plans are a bad thing to you, having goals for a state to focus on is common practice in socialist countries, China is beginning their 15th Five Year Plan.
As for the famine in the 1930s, Stalin wasn’t punished because he did not intend to do so, and the soviets did what they could to prevent and alleviate it once it had started. The idea of an intentional famine is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further.
Returning to your claims:
Communists are entirely different from fascists, because they establish socialist democracy and pro-social policies, while fascists do not.
The soviet union wasn’t run by a dictator. To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
The soviet union did not “bleed dry” their member-states, or anyone else. As a socialist economy, it did not need to run on the same mechanisms of capital expansion the west does. Instead, all socialist countries saw dramatic growth over time, and rising key life metrics.
The pedophilic elite that was gotten rid of by communists?
I don’t think his downfall screems “oh, he was arrested for his crimes” - it seems more “he’s getting purged for political reasons”?
If the communists didn’t get rid of him, it was because communism bad corrupt. But when in fact they actually did get rid of him, it was “for political reasons.”
Unfalsifiable orthodoxy
Consider the fact he was in power for like 20 years, and he was purged during power struggles. And the problem, like always, is not communism, but the fact it was USSR - contemporary communists, like Mao, were calling it socialist in words, imperialist in deeds.
Mao was referring to Krushchev, not Stalin. Mao supported Stalin, but opposed Khrushchev’s line that class struggle had ended in the soviet union, when it hadn’t. This led to some of the worst foreign policy by the PRC, such as supporting Pol Pot over Vietnam, and siding with the US over the USSR. Comparatively, the USSR continued to be firmer anti-imperialists. Mao was correct about the snake Khrushchev, and Khrushchev did introduce reform that led to the weakening of socialism, but neither the PRC nor the USSR were imperialist, and the split was a major error.
During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Parenti
Did communists kill or depose Stalin?
As I explained in this comment, there’s practically no actual evidence supporting the claim that Stalin impregnated a 14 year old. Said claims come from Montefiore, who is in Epstein’s black book:
Who said anything about Stalin? You were talking about Beria.