#thesovietbroadcast asks

[thesovietbroadcast]

This is the classic "Every source that you follow is wrong but we have the right sources". It's funny the fact that the extremes look alike

[thesovietbroadcast]

What are your thoughts on primitivism?

Even though it raises some valid criticisms on certain elements of capitalism such as the modernist optimism in the capacity of technology to alleviate ecological crisis without diminishing productivity, it fundamentally ignores the root cause, downplays the role played by colonialism, and the alternative it provides is returning to old social orders which is outright impossible.

In other words, primitivism - as an ideology - is what happens when first world anti-capitalists see the immense, unsustainable excess of value transferred to their countries, and the resources they have open access to but fail to conjure a materialist framework to analyse it and provide a proper answer. Not to mention much of the ‘historical’ basis for primitivism has been rendered obsolete thanks to new insights in anthropology and the existence of ‘communistic’ agricultural societies (which contradicts the crackpot theory that settlements and the development of agriculture doomed humanity). It is a profound manifestation of euro-amerikan centric thought with a lot of racist baggage as expected.

Once again, the issue is not the industrial society or the advent of agriculture and cities (as prophesied by these ideological crackers) but global capitalism, the division of the world between oppressors and oppressed, and how a small percentage of the Earth’s population enjoys a comfortable life whilst billions of human beings in the third world are shackled to an endless cycle of immiseration.

[thesovietbroadcast]

fucking choke you subhuman tankie

[thesovietbroadcast]

What's your opinion of Amadeo Bordiga?

Gramsci himself best articulated the issues with Bordiga and the practical impotence of his political thoughts:

“Comrade Bordiga limits himself to upholding a cautious position on all the questions raised by the Left. He doesn’t say: the International poses and resolves such and such a question in this way, but the Left will instead pose and resolve it this other way. He instead says: the way the International poses and resolves problems doesn’t convince me; I fear it falls into opportunism, there are insufficient guarantees against this, etc.”His position, then, is one of permanent suspicion and doubt. In this way the position of the “Left” is purely negative; they express reservations without specifying them in a concrete form, and above all without indicating in concrete form their point of view, their solutions. They end by spreading doubt and distrust, without constructing anything.

“Concerning his disagreement with Lenin, Comrade Bordiga remains skillfully on the general, while not being specific.”

“Comrade Bordiga not only fails to draw the logical consequences of his negations, he above all fails to counter-propose new directives to the criticized directives in a clear and complete form.”

- Antonio Gramsci, “Sterile and Negative Criticism“, L’Unità September 30, 1925.

In other words, Bordiga’s hyper-vigilance against opportunism made him ineffective in practice. One feature of his writings that we find correct is organic centralism since it grasped the necessary relationship between the party and the base without the pretence of party democracy. He managed to reproduce the basis of the stereotypical interpretation of Stalinism, arguing favourably of a more authoritarian society beyond what Lenin or Stalin believed in. This in turn has been turned into a meme of sorts among left-communists, which is expected from all euro-amerikan centred ideologies which amount to nothing in practice beyond debate echo chambers.

Bordiga also displayed a principled stance when denouncing opponents of decolonisation as “racists” (as what happened with Onorato Damen) while pointing out that the ‘democratic’ struggles in core countries inevitably led to fascism as without the aim towards socialism bourgeois dictatorship takes over.

Beyond the errors mentioned above one we would also add Bordiga’s failure at assessing the threat posed by fascism, and his ‘anti-anti-fascist’ view was disastrous as later demonstrated by how quickly Italy’s post-war political system was undermined by the machinations of U.S. imperialism to maintain the status quo through supporting successive reactionary governments, and the terrorism carried out through GLADIO and the mafia.

[thesovietbroadcast]

What are some good examples of evidence that counters the narrative that Stalin was a raging anti-semite

We more or less answered this question back in 2016: Stalin’s leadership of the party and government featured many prominent Jewish figures in all fields of society, and a great deal of political work was done to struggle against anti-semitism and protecting Jewish people, including the transfer of several populations away from the front line before the Great Patriotic War began. A “raging anti-semite” would have not gone to such lengths but we are sure you’ll find people here and elsewhere who will claim otherwise.

As for the narrative itself it just reflects the usual reactionary tendency of Sovietologists, many of which poured years into psychoanalysing Stalin (as supposedly meaningful historical research) when they were not busy presenting everything about the USSR under a negative light. Even worse is that the sources these ‘academics’ use more often than not are essentially based on hearsay and provide no actual material evidence.

This hasn’t stopped - of course - certain types of leftists (who do nothing more than book worship Sovietologists) of occasionally doing the “this person is problematic” routine as if it’s exemplary research, and not clown behaviour. You know who they are, they’re part of the faecal matter that dwells through the sewers of centrism, begging for notoriety and hiding behind the “I am actually a historian” title.

[thesovietbroadcast]

what's your take on the chinese takover of tibet?

We think you are seeking some kind of affirmation here as if there is any historical validity to the claim that Tibet was “taken over” by the “Chinese” other than a reactionary narrative sponsored by the free Tibet movement which has been a CIA front since its inception with the specific purpose of destabilising China.

Tibet was liberated primarily by Tibetan communists - many of which were young monks - of the feudal slave regime of the Dalai Llama with the assistance of the People’s Liberation Army. That a counter-reaction happened was due to the fact that the feudal lords could not accept a society in which Tibetan peasants were no longer tied to slavery, and had the means and political power to be free and craft their own destiny.

This isn’t to say that there were no errors in the process of establishing this new society, and while Chinese people are often accused of destroying “Tibetan culture” during the Cultural Revolution that was not even in the case as it was mainly Tibetan communists who engaged in such actions against the “old world.”

More importantly here would be analysing how the Communist Party of China dealt with the national question, and arguably here you will find many contradictions and errors from Mao Zedong’s leadership and how the policy to combat Han chauvinism and colonialism was never properly enforced, something which ultimately culminated in how today’s government - now operating on a whole different ideology - is handling the issues between the many peoples that form China as a nation.

In Tibet’s case the relationship between China and Tibet as a national entity has shifted from a proletarian international line into one where the government believes repressive measures are adequate to contain any dissidence - be it from CIA organised fronts or Tibetans with legitimate grievances.

It’s a complicated matter.

[thesovietbroadcast]

What is the most pathetic thing that the neo-nazis do ?

Believe the white working class is a victim of exploitation and not a collaborator.

[thesovietbroadcast]

Is your take on cuba essentially that it's revisionist but doing a lot of good stuff atm?

Our view is that countries like Cuba [and the DPRK] exhibit a clear ideological system that is both anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, and the history of both socialist countries and their staunch relationship are a good reminder that despite the whole world being against their existence these societies are “socialist fortresses” that have managed to endure the worst of calamities and remain firmly committed to their principles, whether these are acknowledged or not by the vast sprawl of leftist inclinations.

Revisionism at this stage would be following the Chinese model of capitalism, and returning the island back into the hands of Gusanos and all the other scum the Cuban Revolution made sure to expunge.

“We Are Cuba!: How a Revolutionary People Have Survived in a Post-Soviet World” by Helen Yaffe is an interesting read on current developments in Cuba, and the author seems convinced wholeheartedly in the vitality of the Cuban Revolution to muster on.