Your post has been removed for being off-topic or lacking sufficient quality to contribute to the discussion. Please ensure your posts are relevant, thoughtful, and add value to the conversation.
Two things either you are full of shit or the system was flawed.
Either Gorbachev had too much power and he destroyed the Union with his change, thus proving that the system was flawed, without checks and balances
or
The system was broken from the start and he tried to fix it.
If any former Soviet leader was in his place they would have killed thousands, if the old guard wasn't so corrupt and stuck in it's ways the union would have prevailed, there wouldn't have been an opertunity for the oligarchs to seize power in the former Union States, the people might have had a chance to prosper like in the west!
We are stuck in the dark ages, we refuse to advance with our enemy, we are feudalism compared to imperialism, we are so backwards we can't agree on simple facts, the reforms were good, the reforms were justified, but it was not the place and time. The economy? Catastrophic. Any reforms to it would have been 20 years too late.
It's a simple fact, the Soviet government betrayed it's people, it stocked weapons so expensive it crippled it's economy for decades to still come.
If Gorbachev was like former leader he could have just silenced the news and not do anything for decades living in luxury and pass the rotting structure to the next in line.
Nothing is, but I doubt talking directly to the CIA who’s been not only trying to destroy the USSR but also killing, torturing, and disappearing people that roughly leaned towards communism all over the globe, was going to fix the USSR. Gorbachev knew this, btw.
Saddam wasn't really left-wing. The tier list reflects a lot of western bias, notably the figures are more white on top and the bottom is entirely Asian.
James Connolly as figure is significant to Irish people but really has no international relevance and might just be considered a "GOAT" only by the fact he is the most Western European person on the list. Kim Il-Sung was actually a pretty decent leader given Korea's material circumstances even though westerners love to demonize North Korea. There is also a bias that if someone is martyred, they are inherently good and actually succeeding in obtaining the power to achieve one's goals is a bad thing.
Obviously, tier lists aren't a good way to understand world history and this falls into the "great man" bullshit which assumes that the individual morality of leaders is more important than material conditions. Many of the rankings are just silly because the very premise of this thought exercise is misguided.
So long as Marxists disconnect themselves from their history because "gulags bad" or "leh authoritarianism" they will be unable to learn from the mistakes and success of other movements; all the uphold their shallow moralist supremacy. They think they can be impartial observers of morality while living in the imperial core but they only think this because their connection to the broader movement has been severed.
It's a fantastic psyop though since it has people who might otherwise develop revolutionary consciousness succumb to nihilism.
The Kim family hold a mostly symbolic role. They cannot dismiss high ranking members in the party and are beholden to an elected president. You don't know enough about it to comment and that's okay.
Again, you don't know enough about it. The DPRK is not perfect but in the face of US aggression, there is genuinely no comparison. You're equivocating the oppressor to the oppressed. You think that the one in front of the gun is the same as the one holding it.
There's a good podcast by Blowback about the history of Korea you should give a listen. It's not about their political economy but it'll help give some historical context for why they developed as they did.
Certainly not all powerful, still not head of government, is still nominated and appointed by the elected multi party parliament as President of the SAC and by the party as chairman, general secretary and member of the presidium, and "supreme leader" is still not a real legal position (even Wikipedia doesn't claim it on its own holds any power)
By multi-party you mean where the primary party holds 88% of seats, and the remaining 12% are in parties that have to "recognize the supremacy of the WPK"?
The same multi-party system that sees elections get 100% turn out and Kim Jong Un get 100% of the vote?
Basically a DemSoc take: get to praise the theorists and the "good communists", but buy hook, line and sinker the bourgeois narrative of the leader of any AES country, i.e. they're all vicious dictators and blights on humanity.
My tier list:
Goat - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Uncle Hao, Che, Sankara, Tito, Malcolm, Kim Il Sung, Connolly
Trotsky was a low energy hater with a massive ego who was fundamentally unable to accept that he wouldn't be the one in charge post revolution. His anti-soviet writings were adopted by the West and are the foundation of anti-communist propaganda. He advocated for Lenin's supreme leader position be restored (with him or one his followers taking the role) but Stalin went against this, instead advocating for the central committee to take the reigns and solidify party democracy. The committee is beholden to voting party members, a supreme leader is not. Trotsky and Stalin fell out for this reason and more. Trotsky seemed to have a bone to pick with the guy who was more popular than him.
He is quite appealing to the western left who want to appeal to endemic anti-communism while promoting socialism. His "global permanent revolution" idea too is appealing since the conclusion from it is that no socialist experiment is ever good enough. It imbues its adherents with a sense of supremacy, that socialism has never been tried and only they have the knowledge of "true socialism". Its a bunch of nonsense and is not scientific.
There's a reason why Trotskist formations are popular in the West but not in the global south. There's no use for this way of thinking when fighting imperialism in the flesh. There's no use for "we can't even try until it's perfect". It's inherently unscientific nonsense. Trotsky's own writings are filled with circular logic and academic jargon. You can tell when a Trot has written something usually because it's written for an academic eye rather than for the masses.
I dislike Trotsky quite a bit. I try, in my own irl organizing, not to harp on it too much in the name of a United front but man it's hard when you hear talk nonsense that they should have unlearned by now.
Mostly cos I'm a Stalinist, to be fair, but also in spite of joining the Bolsheviks in the revolution, he never lost his Menshevik leanings and ultimately ended up, either unwittingly or more likely intentionally, becoming a useful idiot for the CIA and anti-communism more generally.
Because this sub is full of stalinists that don't seem to comprehend that Stalin was just a red tsar, which is very evident if you look a the cult of personality that he created around himself and the fact that he betrayed communist internationalism by creating a red empire (war against Finland) and allying himself with Nazi Germany (molotv-ribbentrop) and I'm not saying that Stalin did only bad things because I recognize that whiteout him the USSR would have probably fallen to Germany, but people need to stop idolizing him.
To further demonstrate that this sub is full of stalinists this comment is going to be down voted to hell.
I love that Stalin is constantly accused of a cult of personality almost exclusively by either liberals who self-pleasure to thoughts of the founding fathers or western leftists who self-identify as Trotskyists.
Trotsky was far from being some self-sacrificial martyr, quietly suffering in obscurity for world revolution. He was just as egotistical, if not far more so, than Stalin. And he never had to actually lead a country, just sit on the sidelines and whine about how it was how he would have done it.
Anyway, on goes the bickering between Stalinists and Trotskyists, ay?
many could call me a tankie, but I say that it isn't right from a historical materialistic perspective to paint every historical person just black or white. for example I say that Trotsky was a traitor, but in the later years, he firstly started as a proper bolshevik, he was one of a og crew, done a lot of good for the movement, later was a minister of foreign stuff in 20s, chief guy in the Red Army during the Civil War, run that armored train across the country, always at the front.
Agreed. I think it's why China is so adamant about non-intervention (plus the fall of the USSR and their failed incursion in Afghanistan). Deng Xiaoping Theory is the greatest development in the theory of governance of all time though. Humans are complicated.
No this list can't be fixed because real-life geopolitics aren't videogames and these aren't fighting game characters and ostensibly we're all historical materialists here.
Ho Chi Minh is Goated. The affect he had on ending colonism to the world is so massive. A man that spend 30 years abroad in a western world never forgot his people, and it gave him even more fuel to continue his journey
I think it's good. If I would change anything I'd put Lenin one higher but honestly I'm not sure on that. Rosa Luxemburg being top tier makes me very happy
![[ Removed by moderator ]](https://i.redd.it/4qk4zoi2a29g1.jpeg){kind=link}
Your post has been removed for being off-topic or lacking sufficient quality to contribute to the discussion. Please ensure your posts are relevant, thoughtful, and add value to the conversation.
Calling Gorbachev based in any way or form tells you everything about this garbage
Exactly
Why is gorbachev bad?
He sold the USSR and all of his comrades, not to mention all of the revolution effort, to the CIA.
Two things either you are full of shit or the system was flawed.
or
If any former Soviet leader was in his place they would have killed thousands, if the old guard wasn't so corrupt and stuck in it's ways the union would have prevailed, there wouldn't have been an opertunity for the oligarchs to seize power in the former Union States, the people might have had a chance to prosper like in the west!
We are stuck in the dark ages, we refuse to advance with our enemy, we are feudalism compared to imperialism, we are so backwards we can't agree on simple facts, the reforms were good, the reforms were justified, but it was not the place and time. The economy? Catastrophic. Any reforms to it would have been 20 years too late.
It's a simple fact, the Soviet government betrayed it's people, it stocked weapons so expensive it crippled it's economy for decades to still come.
If Gorbachev was like former leader he could have just silenced the news and not do anything for decades living in luxury and pass the rotting structure to the next in line.
Lol. What kind of comrades? Yeltsin? Gaidar? Yakovlev?
The USSR was not only the jet set. It was also the people.
"The people" weren't comrades of the party and Gorbachev.
Like what proofs do we have if that ? Cant he really be someone tryna fix the ussr? It wasnt a utopia uk
Nothing is, but I doubt talking directly to the CIA who’s been not only trying to destroy the USSR but also killing, torturing, and disappearing people that roughly leaned towards communism all over the globe, was going to fix the USSR. Gorbachev knew this, btw.
Can u provide me with material about this? M tryna learn here
Absolutely. Here’s some light reading.
https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse
https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/edicion-impresa/articulos/urss-pais-que-desaparecio-navidad_17406
Thankx comrade✊️
The graph is incorrect, St💩lin should be put in "traitor / not leftist". Kim Jong Un should be moved to "flawed but based", or at least "bad".
Why is Gorbachev not traitor?
Because this was made by a liberal.
It was made by a self-described "Libertarian Socialist," a.k.a. a Liberal with extra steps.
This list would be great if:
Saddam wasn't really left-wing. The tier list reflects a lot of western bias, notably the figures are more white on top and the bottom is entirely Asian.
James Connolly as figure is significant to Irish people but really has no international relevance and might just be considered a "GOAT" only by the fact he is the most Western European person on the list. Kim Il-Sung was actually a pretty decent leader given Korea's material circumstances even though westerners love to demonize North Korea. There is also a bias that if someone is martyred, they are inherently good and actually succeeding in obtaining the power to achieve one's goals is a bad thing.
Obviously, tier lists aren't a good way to understand world history and this falls into the "great man" bullshit which assumes that the individual morality of leaders is more important than material conditions. Many of the rankings are just silly because the very premise of this thought exercise is misguided.
Yea, James Connolly is great but putting him above Mao is just plain stupid
Look at these comments man
https://preview.redd.it/oloinypz7e9g1.png?width=861&format=png&auto=webp&s=9966082b06adb92739968b964ea4dcc5ac32ee05
“Beating the Nazis […] doesn’t really advance leftism.”
— A completely sane and intelligent thinker of Reddit
But the CIA is happy all the same.
So long as Marxists disconnect themselves from their history because "gulags bad" or "leh authoritarianism" they will be unable to learn from the mistakes and success of other movements; all the uphold their shallow moralist supremacy. They think they can be impartial observers of morality while living in the imperial core but they only think this because their connection to the broader movement has been severed.
It's a fantastic psyop though since it has people who might otherwise develop revolutionary consciousness succumb to nihilism.
How on Earth is gorbachev based???
How could Joseph Stalin be in bad he saved the union
Kims should be much higher tbh
All monarchists are bad.
The Kim family hold a mostly symbolic role. They cannot dismiss high ranking members in the party and are beholden to an elected president. You don't know enough about it to comment and that's okay.
Yes, and the US promotes democracy and freedom for all and never violates civil rights.
Again, you don't know enough about it. The DPRK is not perfect but in the face of US aggression, there is genuinely no comparison. You're equivocating the oppressor to the oppressed. You think that the one in front of the gun is the same as the one holding it.
There's a good podcast by Blowback about the history of Korea you should give a listen. It's not about their political economy but it'll help give some historical context for why they developed as they did.
Not perfect? 13% of their GDP is cyber theft, in addition the US has provided N. Korea with over a billion dollars in food aid since 1995.
Why didnt China or the Soviet Union provide more aid instead of weapons?
not monarchy
Its not a monarchy its just a system of patrilinear inheritance and absolute authority
Kim Jong Un isn't even head of government or head of state vro😭
Kim Jong Un is chairman of the party, supreme leader/general secretary, and the president of state affairs.
Oh mb on that yeah he is head of state
Certainly not all powerful, still not head of government, is still nominated and appointed by the elected multi party parliament as President of the SAC and by the party as chairman, general secretary and member of the presidium, and "supreme leader" is still not a real legal position (even Wikipedia doesn't claim it on its own holds any power)
By multi-party you mean where the primary party holds 88% of seats, and the remaining 12% are in parties that have to "recognize the supremacy of the WPK"?
The same multi-party system that sees elections get 100% turn out and Kim Jong Un get 100% of the vote?
Bruh moment
Basically a DemSoc take: get to praise the theorists and the "good communists", but buy hook, line and sinker the bourgeois narrative of the leader of any AES country, i.e. they're all vicious dictators and blights on humanity.
My tier list:
Goat - Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Uncle Hao, Che, Sankara, Tito, Malcolm, Kim Il Sung, Connolly
Extremely Based - Kim Jung Il, Kim Jung Un, Rosa
Based - Kim Yo Jung, Allende, Habash
Based but flawed - MLK, Angela Davis, Mandala
Bad - Trotsky, Saddam
Really Bad - Gorbachev
Traitor - Pol Pot
The correct tier list
Why is Trotsky bad?
Trotsky was a low energy hater with a massive ego who was fundamentally unable to accept that he wouldn't be the one in charge post revolution. His anti-soviet writings were adopted by the West and are the foundation of anti-communist propaganda. He advocated for Lenin's supreme leader position be restored (with him or one his followers taking the role) but Stalin went against this, instead advocating for the central committee to take the reigns and solidify party democracy. The committee is beholden to voting party members, a supreme leader is not. Trotsky and Stalin fell out for this reason and more. Trotsky seemed to have a bone to pick with the guy who was more popular than him.
He is quite appealing to the western left who want to appeal to endemic anti-communism while promoting socialism. His "global permanent revolution" idea too is appealing since the conclusion from it is that no socialist experiment is ever good enough. It imbues its adherents with a sense of supremacy, that socialism has never been tried and only they have the knowledge of "true socialism". Its a bunch of nonsense and is not scientific.
There's a reason why Trotskist formations are popular in the West but not in the global south. There's no use for this way of thinking when fighting imperialism in the flesh. There's no use for "we can't even try until it's perfect". It's inherently unscientific nonsense. Trotsky's own writings are filled with circular logic and academic jargon. You can tell when a Trot has written something usually because it's written for an academic eye rather than for the masses.
I dislike Trotsky quite a bit. I try, in my own irl organizing, not to harp on it too much in the name of a United front but man it's hard when you hear talk nonsense that they should have unlearned by now.
Mostly cos I'm a Stalinist, to be fair, but also in spite of joining the Bolsheviks in the revolution, he never lost his Menshevik leanings and ultimately ended up, either unwittingly or more likely intentionally, becoming a useful idiot for the CIA and anti-communism more generally.
Because this sub is full of stalinists that don't seem to comprehend that Stalin was just a red tsar, which is very evident if you look a the cult of personality that he created around himself and the fact that he betrayed communist internationalism by creating a red empire (war against Finland) and allying himself with Nazi Germany (molotv-ribbentrop) and I'm not saying that Stalin did only bad things because I recognize that whiteout him the USSR would have probably fallen to Germany, but people need to stop idolizing him.
To further demonstrate that this sub is full of stalinists this comment is going to be down voted to hell.
I love that Stalin is constantly accused of a cult of personality almost exclusively by either liberals who self-pleasure to thoughts of the founding fathers or western leftists who self-identify as Trotskyists.
Trotsky was far from being some self-sacrificial martyr, quietly suffering in obscurity for world revolution. He was just as egotistical, if not far more so, than Stalin. And he never had to actually lead a country, just sit on the sidelines and whine about how it was how he would have done it.
Anyway, on goes the bickering between Stalinists and Trotskyists, ay?
So far I'm the only downvote.
🤷
Welp, I'm not the only one anymore 😂
Uh... Why Saddam is here?
Because US bad
“Leftist” LOL
Yes, being a Trot will do that; congratulations
many could call me a tankie, but I say that it isn't right from a historical materialistic perspective to paint every historical person just black or white. for example I say that Trotsky was a traitor, but in the later years, he firstly started as a proper bolshevik, he was one of a og crew, done a lot of good for the movement, later was a minister of foreign stuff in 20s, chief guy in the Red Army during the Civil War, run that armored train across the country, always at the front.
https://preview.redd.it/w8omal0oie9g1.png?width=1040&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6ad7c7bb9d596be96f0d34b141237f17be46175
Fixed it
Pol Pot was such a strange POS lol
Real, Deng’s biggest mistake was supporting that Schizo
Agreed. I think it's why China is so adamant about non-intervention (plus the fall of the USSR and their failed incursion in Afghanistan). Deng Xiaoping Theory is the greatest development in the theory of governance of all time though. Humans are complicated.
100%
Trot opinions
What's with this anti-Korean sentiment?
I dunno how a leftist can support the country where independent unions are illegal and workers' rights are cooked
Another trotskyst or liberal i guess, more likely to be a liberal, btw why the hell is Saddam is on list? People are idiots fr
Fax
Except of marx and engels I disagree 100%
It must be a ragebait
It is , from a liberal
No this list can't be fixed because real-life geopolitics aren't videogames and these aren't fighting game characters and ostensibly we're all historical materialists here.
isnt this prolly from tiermaker or something? if anyone knows a link feel free to share please
James Connolly made my day.
Man i'm probably the only one somewhat simping for Kim-Yo lmao
I heard rumors that it's actually her who runs DPRK not Kim Jong
how is guevara two tiers above castro
Rough, wowsers
tf is this?
Stalin must be put in extremely based
Switch Stalin and Trotsky, bump up Fidel. Move Gorbachev to traitor.
Ho Chi Minh is Goated. The affect he had on ending colonism to the world is so massive. A man that spend 30 years abroad in a western world never forgot his people, and it gave him even more fuel to continue his journey
seems like just a regular orthodox marxists. not worth to engage imo
Like the only one that is nearly universally agreeable (apparently there are some insane people who think otherwise) is Pol Pot’s placing.
Hahaha ok trot 😂 Joey Steel „bad“ along with Saddam is hilarious. Trotzky based eventhough he was an anti communist in practice.
Edit: che literally a marxist-leninist alongside Trotzky 😅
Not too off tho, there's pretty much only Lenin that would need to be higher and Gorbatchev lower
Engels goes to bad.
Why?
IMO dude made too many claims proved to be wrong
Tito is the GOAT though.
Nobody did more.
Gaddafi close 2nd but not even on the list, tsk.
Put Lenin on the goat and that’s it. Rest is ok
(Joking, really some changes needed but honestly the takes in this sub are horrible)
Couldn’t agree more with this list. Well done
I think it's good. If I would change anything I'd put Lenin one higher but honestly I'm not sure on that. Rosa Luxemburg being top tier makes me very happy
Adding Deng in traitors