P
Last edited:
I'd rather not watch this... 
What's it about?
What's it about?
P
First one pertains to why communism as a mode of production is necessary and inevitableI'd rather not watch this...
What's it about?
Second one pertains to liberal-bourgeois culture's origins and coming collapse
Third one, can't remember
Fourth one basically destroys fascism and natsoc ideology by explaining it's irresolvable contradictions as a finalised form of capitalist production in decay
you, as a westerner, would never understand communism
Hmmmm.. Let me put you through a little testing routine
Did America ever have a left-wing government?
Hmmmm.. Let me put you through a little testing routine
Did America ever have a left-wing government?
P
I wouldn't expect a valid critique of communism from someone who doesn't understand how to change a signature, but nevertheless:
Having or having not lived a normalfag life under some "leftist" government does not magically grant a proper understanding of what was lived through, no more than simply existing on Earth grants you complete understanding of human history by absolute default. What you're suggesting is beyond absurd.
It is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not America has ever had a "left-wing" government. Establishing socialism is the goal, not a precondition for itself.
P
Also, nice playing identity politics.
Ye mad bro? To actually post something in signature i need to know how to change it, man, dont be dumbo
and i posted something there, means i know how to change it
Answer the question, mister, dont try to act overly smart
P
I've answered the question, reread my answer kazakhfag.
America has never had a leftist government, it's simply not the point.
good, means you know something
Good for you that i am not savvy in the muricanski political terminology! or i would make you a nazbol. Or not.
Communism is good, if you are realizing it - you are interesting person at the very least
Why commie good? They developed all your quotas, pensions and all this stuff.. be thankful fer that, at least Commie = gov works for the people, all people, not just richmen who take all resources to themselves
i cannot actually go in-depth in poliitics cuz aint savvy in your terminology!
P
At the very least, to be fair, I can tolerate NazBol and Strasserism. It's class-collaborationism that I can't stand tbh
The most reasonable mix between communism and nationalism I can think of is Juche, so I suppose there's that.
class collaborationism... in communism there are no classes, everyone works for the state, which in turn grants products of state to said everyone
Communism - something like extremely big corporation
im sure you heard about cyberpunk settings, where the megacorps control effectively everything - where you live, how you live, where you work
now - ussr was exact this corporation, that was controlling everything, but gave everything to its people, not tight-knit CEOs and directors - thats the difference between megacorp that fucks its workers and communism
quite an interesting shit, wouldnt you agree? if leadership wants to hoard all for itself - it is corporate
if leadership gives everything to its own subjects - it is commie
aint that a kick in the head, that two vastly different govs are actually different only in leadership
P
To clarify, I meant moreso that Fascism and National-Socialism utilize class collaboration as an unstable alternative to collectivization. Which is primarily why Fascism and National-Socialism were financed by upper class elites and monopolists to maintain their grip on capital and state power. Apologies for the confusion there.
Well, not quite. Some have described the USSR as "State-Capitalist" i.e. an extremely big corporation in the form of a single state ruled by a Communist Party.
Regardless of one's perspective on the USSR, it's clear enough from the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin that Socialism and Communism were two different stages of social development; Socialism utilizing the state, i.e. the USSR, whereas full Communism is stateless in that the government of persons is replaced entirely by the administration of things, i.e. production.
Also not quite. In the general sense, a corporation is just a form of social organization, and has existed throughout different modes of production throughout history, and indeed do exist in their own unique form under socialism. In the strictly capitalist sense of the word however, a corporation is a top-down managerial dictatorship of the proprietors of capital over the laborors and functionaries of the business. The only capitalist exception to this would be a worker owned/run co-operative, but it is still subject to the laws of capitalism and the market.
Under socialism/communism, everything is cooperatively owned and operated by working people alone, and nothing is subject to the restrictions of capital seeing as capital and the market economy are done away with in due time. Communist labor requires democratic control and free participation to be defined as communist.
Capitalism and Communism are actually quite fundamentally different systems, not merely a factor of leadership.
Last edited:
i know, man, i know all this shit, dont get me start a hyperfixation on intricaties of a political systems of 20th century, it can be useful ofc, but i do not need it
u derstand even that communism is different from socialism? you truly are something else... for a westerner) aint ya gonna get me with your trying of a big scary words, matie! Yes, capitalistic corporation works on a trade with other corps, you got it right, good job, and it is different from left-wing
Different only because leaders going that way! If a leader is jeff bezos or something - here, a ruthless corp that mauls its subject into dust, if a leader is someone that wants to make people lives better - voila, now we are commies. That is all, you dont need to say how corps and how commies operate
aint there much to be added to this, either im risking to start bullshitting you, and nobody need it
but - yes, you are good, better than 90% dimwits here
I am sincerely sorry that i cannot use english terminology for all of this.. if only you were russian! you would get your ass handed to you on a silver platter, i assure you
so... what do we gonna do now? i fancy myself as a knowledgeable fucker here, but alas... you already know, dont you
P
I may have some fresh ideas cooking up
go and search how does corporate ladder workI may have some fresh ideas cooking up
now that is something i wish to discuss.. sorry man, my brain got totally fucked by chat with russian hyperficated leftie - he is god, i mean GOD in this, and chatting with him is something else
In a bad way. He is so hyperfixated on leftist ideologies that he is actually knowlegdeable only on it, nothing more, that is the danger of hyperfixation. and i chatted with him for over a year.. jeez
i do not know how do corps work, and i would be so happy to discuss this
P
For sure man, and apologies for the initial hostile attitute on my part. It's just a passionate topic on my end tbh.
Do you have discord?
negatory, do not have, reason: bad internet in my current location, this sentient being is too lazy to get itself good internet
you dont need to apologise to a random person on the internet, you should treat them as you see them last time before their death
cuz thats how it is... you see somebody on da internet, and you will see that somebody only one time (with high probability) - why you should get overly kind and good with him? you will never see the fucker again in your entire life, so dont act fine and dandy on randoms, AND do not get into pointless fights on the internet.. yeah, i am really laying out everything, dont i. its just a common sense, all of it
well, it is only my stuff, thats how i operate, it might or not might work for you. Its up to you, not me, you are not obligated to follow
passionate about politics? good, what can i say more
Khanivore out
Over 9 hours whew boy. Anyways if communism’s so great, why has it always failed? Inb4 “that wasn’t real communism”
P
Whew boy, a lot to be covered here, so I'll answer it to the best of my ability. Here goes.
How would you define success in terms of a country/system? Longevity? Quality of Life? Military Strength? Economic Performance? Political and Diplomatic Influence? Measuring up to World Powers at the time? I suppose you could consider all of these factors at play, and yet even still, this or that socialist country would still not only meet those criteria for success, but in numerous cases exceed them in respects that many capitalist countries cannot and do not.
If we're going by longevity or quality of life, 69ish years is a pretty damn long time for a supposedly "failed" system to remain intact, and that's not even considering the fact that Socialist Korea still exists to this day, and is picking up rapid economic development right as the capitalist world crumbles to dust around us, clear as day. The quality of life, after stabilization and industrialization, was roughly on-par with that of western countries at the time. The average Soviet citizen consuming roughly equal calorie intake per capita as the US around 1983, (Sov: 3,280 Cals/Day, vs. US: 3,520 Cals/Day) with the Central Intelligence Agency reporting that Soviet diets were likely healthier than that of the average American.
(Source: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85M00363R000601440024-5.pdf)
Although Communism itself is a stateless, classless, moneyless society and hasn't yet been achieved, Soviet-Socialism, despite its' apparent structural rigidities, was indeed the first and most successful attempt to-date. The USSR is our prime example to look at here.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) (1917/22-1991)
- The Beginning: Before the USSR was brought into existence via the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the Russian Empire was a backward, underdeveloped feudal nothing of a country immiserated with widespread poverty, starvation and repression already under the Tsarist Regime, (The Gulag system was implemented by the Tsarist regime, and was far more brutal than it was even during Stalin's time) with a noticable lack of any industrialization or trace of civility in feudal society at all. It was like a third world country, and was as underdeveloped as India in the early 20th century under the much-cucked-for monarchy. The Civil War threw the country into complete disaster. The Communists changed all of that in a matter of a few short decades.
- The Founding: Since the very moment of its' constitutional inception in 1922, the USSR had been bombarded with destabilisation attempts, economic sanctions, and been threatened to high hell merely for challenging global finance capital, the very same primary reason Nazi Germany was ostracized by the international community, for challenging, you guessed it, global finance capital. The USSR, despite being slapped with a brutal civil war, a merciless German invasion propagated by German Fascist economic decay, countless threats and sanctions from nearly every capitalist power on the planet immediately after WWII, it managed to stay intact for another five decades on top of the brutal first two that surely would have seen it ripped to shreds if socialism is as weak as you would like to make it sound. That sounds pretty resillient and successful to me. But that's just the tip of the iceberg here.
- The Holodomor, Narratives, Origins and Causes: The term Holodomor itself appeared relatively late. It first appeared in 1982 in Harvard’s Ukrainian Studies centre and widely circulated in 1984–1986 when the Reagan administration actively promoted it. It lost popularity afterwards but was revived in the 2000s in Ukraine when local political situation required it.
- During the combined plague of malaria outbreak, draught, and black market food contamination (deadly fungus), resulting from mass stealing and below par storage, Nikita Khrushchev was in charge of Ukrainian SSR at the time. When he was elected Soviet premier after Stalin's death, the only natural thing for him as a Ukranian official to do was to attack Stalin’s name in order to alleviate himself from his own fuck ups. So Khrushchev laid the foundation for the exaggerations. Later on, after collapse of USSR, new Ukrainian Fascist elites, funded by NATO, tried to create a new myth of "genocide", So the story was blown way out of proportion. 2 million losses due to a combination of different preexisting factors quickly became "Muh 30 million starved to death by muh evil Stalin". In order to substantiate Ukrainian Holodomor, photographs of Great Depression in the USA were used to fabricate evidence, which resulted in a massive scandal. But few have heard about the scandal, but everybody has heard about the mainstream Holodomor Narrative. And only selected few dug up enough information to find out that Stalin dispatched aid immediately to the region, putting industrialisation on halt. (at the time USA and Britain were demanding wheat as payment instead of gold, as a result of draught in USA in previous couple of years).
- The Holodomor was not caused by a sudden random increase in grain exports, as there is no evidence or logic for this mainstream misconception. Rather, the preconditions for the Holodomor famine were very much predetermined, apart from preexisting weather and bad harvest conditions of the time, by the destruction and slaughter caused by German Fascist occupation and destruction of land, labor, and resources during the invasion of the USSR (I.E. Operation Barbarossa, Operation München, and the Battle of Brody (1941-1945), to name a few). It should not at all be surprising, therefore, to conclude that an externally predetermined famine would be imminent. That's quite clearly no inherent fault of socialism, but rather of German Fascism, and to state otherwise is quite plainly ignorant of historical fact.
- Although the Holodomor Famine itself was a very real and devestating occurance, the death toll of the famine is largely misattributed to Stalin's policies, and the toll is often exaggerated to ridiculous proportions. The total number of deaths from *all causes considered* in Ukraine in 1933 was ~1,3 million and excess mortality was over 0.4 million. However, the real deaths from hunger itself were actually quite rare, with the *main causes* being cardiovascular diseases, tropical malaria and typhus with which very rudimentary local health care systems couldn’t cope.
P
Similar threads
- shrewed
- The Lounge
shrewed
Users who are viewing this thread
