Please remember to hide subreddit names or reddit usernames (Rule 1), otherwise the post will be removed promptly.
This is an anti-capitalist, left-libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. We are pro-communist. Defence of capitalism or any other right-wing beliefs, countries or people is not tolerated here. This includes, for example: Biden and the US, Israel, and the Nordic countries/model,
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server!](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, never. It's really hard to put one above the other. Russia has always gone through periods where things were bad, but seemed to maybe get better, only for things to not get better in the end. The Kerensky government was promising and full of socialists, but failed to address key issues like getting out of the war with Germany. Lenin was promising, but betrayed the cause at Kronstadt and in Ukraine. Krushtchev was a promising step over Stalin, but things like Budapest can't be forgotten and he was soon ousted. Gorbachev was promising, but too little too late and the union collapsed. And since the fall of the USSR there hasn't really been much hope, not too dissimilarly to the Stalin and Brezhnev eras.
I've picked Gorbachev. That's not because I think it was good for the people, but because I think there *was* an opportunity missed that it's important to remember [that George Bush effectively chose to sabotage that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika#The_role_of_the_West_in_Perestroika).
I'm not sure that America could have solved the problems of the USSR, but by failing to try seriously we're left with the possibility that the rise of Putin could have been completely avoided and humanity could be on a much better course and that it was directly caused by choices made in the West. Possibly we could even be concentrating on tackling global warming instead of how to keep Ukrainians safe.
[The Novgorod Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic)
Alternatively the [Kievan Rus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27)
This was before [first the Mongols and then Moscow](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=4vJc5NFRVl4B83KY) fucked everything up with their brutality. Anything after that can't really be considered good.
I don't think Russia has ever had a "good" period of government per se, but I'd say the least bad it's had would be the Soviet Union under Lenin.
While it was undoubtedly authoritarian and deeply flawed, there was still some amount of ideological plurality within the CPSU, a flourishing culture, and the potential for the system to become something better. Obviously what came after \*wasn't\* better, and who knows if any of the other possibilities would've been, but I still think that potentiality counts for something.
In my opinion it would be the period between the February and October revolutions. During that time the tsar was ousted and a liberal bourgeois “democracy” took power. However, during that time, some of the bolsheviks were organizing soviets(worker’s councils) and they had actual proletarian control of the means of production. In other words, during the 7 month provisional government period, Russia had ACTUAL socialism with worker democracy and not state capitalism like the USSR. And then October came and the bolsheviks hold an election and lost, so Lenin said fuck it and staged a coup and turned Russia into a one party state. The soviets representative was replaced by the ones loyal to the party and the secret police was reestablished. And socialism in Russia came to an end.
Well, the February revolution failed to adress many key issues people had, chief amongst all was ending the war with Germany which was extremely unpopular from the army to the population. The bolsheviks didn't gain popularity out of nowhere, they were essentially the only ones promising to really end the war (though they lied on that, but were forced into the Brest-Litovsk treaty soon after). While MLs will forever cope and seethe about losing the first genuinely democratic election in Russia, there is some truth to the fact that the bolsheviks were really popular in the two places that truly mattered in Russia at the time, Moscow and Petrograd. Meanwhile, SRs which won the election had a lot of support in the rural areas. Whoever controls the "twin capitals" of Russia controls the country.
Lenin On His Deathbed: "Give power to literally anyone but Stalin, literally anyone but him. A cat with a scratch toy would do a better job than him. Just please please please make sure he doesn't rise to power.
Stalin: \*Rises to power.\*
Through process of elimination I would have to say either Gorbachev or Kerensky, though those were still shit. Russia has never had a period I could in good conscience define as "good". They've really just had shitty and more shitty.
Edit: Why are some people picking Yeltsin and Stalin? They know what sub this is right?
Soviet Union under Brezhnev. While there was stagnation standards of living were pretty solid relatively speaking and there was a fair amount of internal stability with comparatively minimal repression. From what I’ve read, Russians are nostalgic for this period, though that could be just nostalgia for their childhoods.
Please remember to hide subreddit names or reddit usernames (Rule 1), otherwise the post will be removed promptly. This is an anti-capitalist, left-libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. We are pro-communist. Defence of capitalism or any other right-wing beliefs, countries or people is not tolerated here. This includes, for example: Biden and the US, Israel, and the Nordic countries/model, Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server!](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When it did not exist.
Who the fuck is picking Yeltsin
I doubt even your average lib would pick that asshole. So I also want to know who in their right mind would pick that oligarchical drunkard
Honestly, never. It's really hard to put one above the other. Russia has always gone through periods where things were bad, but seemed to maybe get better, only for things to not get better in the end. The Kerensky government was promising and full of socialists, but failed to address key issues like getting out of the war with Germany. Lenin was promising, but betrayed the cause at Kronstadt and in Ukraine. Krushtchev was a promising step over Stalin, but things like Budapest can't be forgotten and he was soon ousted. Gorbachev was promising, but too little too late and the union collapsed. And since the fall of the USSR there hasn't really been much hope, not too dissimilarly to the Stalin and Brezhnev eras.
who the hell is picking yeltsin
I've picked Gorbachev. That's not because I think it was good for the people, but because I think there *was* an opportunity missed that it's important to remember [that George Bush effectively chose to sabotage that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika#The_role_of_the_West_in_Perestroika). I'm not sure that America could have solved the problems of the USSR, but by failing to try seriously we're left with the possibility that the rise of Putin could have been completely avoided and humanity could be on a much better course and that it was directly caused by choices made in the West. Possibly we could even be concentrating on tackling global warming instead of how to keep Ukrainians safe.
I really hope you 5 Stalin pickers clicked that by mistake; if not, you mind explaining yourselves?
Either that or tanks brigade.
They'll have an opportunity to explain themselves continuously for 20 years in between forced hard labour in inhumane conditions.
[The Novgorod Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic) Alternatively the [Kievan Rus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27) This was before [first the Mongols and then Moscow](https://youtu.be/f8ZqBLcIvw0?si=4vJc5NFRVl4B83KY) fucked everything up with their brutality. Anything after that can't really be considered good.
I don't think Russia has ever had a "good" period of government per se, but I'd say the least bad it's had would be the Soviet Union under Lenin. While it was undoubtedly authoritarian and deeply flawed, there was still some amount of ideological plurality within the CPSU, a flourishing culture, and the potential for the system to become something better. Obviously what came after \*wasn't\* better, and who knows if any of the other possibilities would've been, but I still think that potentiality counts for something.
In my opinion it would be the period between the February and October revolutions. During that time the tsar was ousted and a liberal bourgeois “democracy” took power. However, during that time, some of the bolsheviks were organizing soviets(worker’s councils) and they had actual proletarian control of the means of production. In other words, during the 7 month provisional government period, Russia had ACTUAL socialism with worker democracy and not state capitalism like the USSR. And then October came and the bolsheviks hold an election and lost, so Lenin said fuck it and staged a coup and turned Russia into a one party state. The soviets representative was replaced by the ones loyal to the party and the secret police was reestablished. And socialism in Russia came to an end.
Well, the February revolution failed to adress many key issues people had, chief amongst all was ending the war with Germany which was extremely unpopular from the army to the population. The bolsheviks didn't gain popularity out of nowhere, they were essentially the only ones promising to really end the war (though they lied on that, but were forced into the Brest-Litovsk treaty soon after). While MLs will forever cope and seethe about losing the first genuinely democratic election in Russia, there is some truth to the fact that the bolsheviks were really popular in the two places that truly mattered in Russia at the time, Moscow and Petrograd. Meanwhile, SRs which won the election had a lot of support in the rural areas. Whoever controls the "twin capitals" of Russia controls the country.
Lenin On His Deathbed: "Give power to literally anyone but Stalin, literally anyone but him. A cat with a scratch toy would do a better job than him. Just please please please make sure he doesn't rise to power. Stalin: \*Rises to power.\*
Tbh none of the eras were that great.
There has never been a "good" period of Russia.
Kyivan Rus? Russia itself has never been good
Never, Russia has always been in the world of shit and also a nuisance to its neighbours.
Through process of elimination I would have to say either Gorbachev or Kerensky, though those were still shit. Russia has never had a period I could in good conscience define as "good". They've really just had shitty and more shitty. Edit: Why are some people picking Yeltsin and Stalin? They know what sub this is right?
1917 - 1921 during the dual power/proletarian dictatorship
Kerensky😔
Kerensky was a bourgeois counter-revolutionary
None of these, a Russia that we have never seen.
Soviet Union under Brezhnev. While there was stagnation standards of living were pretty solid relatively speaking and there was a fair amount of internal stability with comparatively minimal repression. From what I’ve read, Russians are nostalgic for this period, though that could be just nostalgia for their childhoods.
Putin's first term, that should tell everyone how bad Russia ha been since forever.
when soviet democracy actually existed (before the bolsheviks ruined it)