Відео

Popular Frontism was not a leftwing line. The leftist line was sectarianism and the advocacy of the social fascism thesis. This policy was something which the Right attacked as Ultra Left. The Right Opposition supported united fronts as opposed to the sectarianism being pushed by the Comintern. The abandonment of the social fascism thesis and the sudden switch to the popular front tactic was a shift to the Right, but the ICO thought this tactic was blatantly counter revolutionary and attacked it.

The ICO supported collectivization and industrialization. The abandonment of the NEP was not something they were worried about rather it was the tactics being pushed by the Comintern. The NEP issue was problem between the Left and Right inside the Soviet Union but not abroad.

@@Ultradogmattick thank you that helps

why did ICO attack​ what it once defended?(United Frontism I mean)@@Ultradogmattick

@ United Front and Popular front aren’t the same. A United Front is purely between labor forces, in a popular front petty-bourgeois and liberal forces can join. The ICO viewed this as putting revolution on the shelf indefinitely as the communists worked to placate their bourgeois allies.

Understood and it’s not pedantic but the proper way to phrase it. My source actually does say “On June 16, after Azaña had been elected president of the Republic, in place of Niceto Alcalá Zamora, deposed by parliament…” but I hadn’t realized that had a specific meaning lol. It also says he didn’t attack Azaña directly but that “Maurin this time attacked the government for not carrying out the Popular Front program and criticized strongly the suspension of constitutional guarantees imposed by the Azaña cabinet.”(ibid pg 210) So it was on me for misinterpreting what I read more than anything.

Yeah, hopefully the Indian section makes it into its own video

It's pointless to talk about... History?

I don’t think my video is incomprehensible I think I’m quite clear in what I’m talking about. It’s simply about the history of expelled members of the Comintern. Anyone slightly familiar with the Third international should be able to follow along pretty well. I’m not trying to push an “esoteric ideology” I’m just telling a story.

@@Ultradogmattick fair enough the video was legit interesting i was mistaken in thin,king its a video on theory but the history is quite interesting my point still stands on marxisem but perhaps i should have watched the fucking video before comenting good video overall i apologize

Look, you've got a point worth making but this is a history channel. This dude ain't trying to be the next Lenin Aim your critique at the people actually doing the things you're criticizing

Perhaps check out Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism to see he too was a big bag of hot air nonsense

what were they cooking?

​@@Julkabibulka something to die for

Yeah I’ve heard of him lol, interesting and genuinely sad story.

Yeah for sure but I’ve got a lot I already want to talk about so it’s going to be a while 😂

Death to Archeio-Marxism.

​@@GreekMaoistmaoist 😂😭

Armchair antiaction

@@friendly_ricefarmer6526 cope

Material conditions

Dialectics

uhhh dialectics

it's dialectical yuo see

something something Hegel i dunno

@@alvaricles2297 Yeah someone pointed that out to me, I’ve got it locked for future reference. I always assumed the Falange Primo De Rivera was the same one running the dictatorship.

Words words words, write an actual critique

""Marxist""-""Leninist"" when someone says that the trials were justified: A very truthful and well researched video comrade, even if was hours long it's always fun to see you destroy the troskyite traitors with facts and logic ""M""-""L"" when someone says the opposite: That's slander, and besides, no one cares about that super old stuff. Historical materialism? Go touch grass and do some real working class organizing like me and my ten friends in the M-L sect number 54

@@Tvlogs22 Yes and no actually and it’s funny because I’ve seen that video myself. I follow this page on Instagram called @ussrpictures and they posted one of those images (the one with Sverdlov) on November 5th in 2024 I reposted that with basically the same caption I put in this video. Now with the image where Stalin himself was removed I did get in fact get that from him.

The ones I used in my video are in the descriptions

Plus some more that I didn’t cite directly

@@Ultradogmattick I see, thank you.

That’s why I showed it, that was the point

The point was that he’s lying about Trotskyists supporting/rehabilitating the OUN

@@Ultradogmattickapologies, when you said “isn’t it malicious to use the statements of one group as an indictment of a whole movement” i assumed you were saying the group from the article supported him

Capital Punishment on MIA

He doesn't even say that. He's explicit when he says that there were several gangs and factions, trots being just one of them. Hell, you can't even get straight what he's saying, which proves none of you guys even spend time researching what you are attacking. Reddit echo-chamber broke loose on YT this season.

@@novinceinhosic3531 My comment was obviously a hyperbole. FinBol does, however, claim they were all counter-revolutionaries though, which is insane considering the defendants of the Moscow Trials were all lifelong Bolsheviks who served in the Civil War, many of them having high posts in the Communist Party and being on Lenin's inner circle. He also claims that they were terrorists and saboteurs, and provides no credible source for it.

@@gen_henry9836 One of Lenin's inner circle who held a very high position was Roman Malinovsky, who was a tsarist agent, so the argument that they were before 1917 in the party and were in a high position/met Lenin personally, doesn't really aid them too much. Moreover, they both denounced Trotsky when he fell in disgrace with the other bolsheviks, so if we are to consider that Trotsky was innocent, when why would Kamenev and Zinoviev be innocent along with Bukharin (Bukharin even siding with Stalin against Trotsky in the beginning and having good personal relations with him despite ideological disagreements)? There is no consistency in the narrative. If all were innocent, why did Stalin would want them to be killed, especially when there was clear a new war in Europe was coming by late 30's? Why was there so much shifting in NKVD where two chiefs in row were executed? Again, it does not make any sense if we take the assumptions that everyone but Stalin was innocent (and we know it wasn't the case, since people who escaped the trial admitted many years afterwards that they indeed planned to kill Stalin eventually). Why did right after the Secret Speech, all of Stalin's inner cirlce was either purged or sidelined and threatened to silence if Khrushchev was one of the biggest supporters of Stalin's cult of personality and a long time member of the CC? You can see that his position, his words, his relation to Stalin did not amount to anything once he sized the opportunity and became the biggest anti-stalinist. Why would you assume it's not the case for Lenin's own circles and long-time bolsheviks? It's unreasonable to think this way. Finn is not the one who makes the claim, he merely cites Furr who cites the soviet arhives and he states that everything begins with the assassination of Kirov in 1934 where a certain plot to assassinate Stalin in the years to come was formed by them and their faction. The issue with Moscow Trials is that the bulk of evidences are produced by the NKVD which historians selectively dismiss the bulk of it under the notion that all of them were either forged or forced confessions under torture. How do they prove they were forced confessions under torture? Because of the very raports against Yezhov, where Yezhov "is tortured into confessing" that he employed torture, despite it being illegal according to soviet law. So a forced confession is accepted only in as much as it can be used to construct a narrative to prove that the trials were a sham, but by its very own logic, they should dismiss Yezhov's poor of torture because it itself was used as a forced confession. So in the end the historians have no evidence of torture (even the independet eye witnesses dismiss it being the case), so they have no evidence of they falsely accused. Furr talks about this, mainly the problem that historians deal with this topic by selectively applying rigid principles or making wild speculations full of bias, they focus their attention into proving that the NKVD's evidences false because... you cannot trust the NKVD as a rule..., but none even attempts or is even able to prove that they in fact were innocent. They simply apply legalistic principle of innocent before proved guilty and if they dismiss anything coming from the NKVD, they are innocent by the virtue of principle, only to then form this very principle declare them factually innocent (which they can't do, nor that they are interested). Imagine having the same reasoning on the assumption that any authority in US would be under a conspiracy to falsely prosecute someone and you dismiss all evidences gather by the FBI then sit back and declare your innocent by the simple virture of shouting "you're biased". A very important thing which historians were not able to prove, it is that there is no connection between Stalin's implication in the prosecution or the very trial, in fact we have some described scenes which hit at the fact the he was a mere observer like everyone else. On a final note, I may add that they were not great on theory form the little we have from their writings and speeches. Bukharin was actually awful and were criticized by Lenin a lot. Bukharinism is the outright basis of Dengism in todays China.

​@@novinceinhosic3531 bolshevik party fell into opportunism after failed liberation of Poland. Even Stalin of all people said that few years later, before changing his position as expected from him