why left-wing parties harm socialism/communism more

[chudjak]

Leaders of the spartacist communism revolt and the Bavarian Soviet republic were Jewish. Germans at the time hated communism, and also hated Jews. So it's no wonder why the Nazis were against these people. It wasnt to "protect capital", it was to protect the German nation and volk from foreign takeover and racial extinction

 

[chudjak]

And the ancient Egyptians were actually black, and Jesus was black too.
By the way, Marx, Tesla, and Leonardo da Vinci were all black.
We wuz kings and shit
what you smoked?
Where do you learn history?

I'm not sure about ALL factories, but the West did help

 

[Fat Chink]

View attachment 1476014
I'm not sure about ALL factories, but the West did help

Ford supported the Nazis

 

[chudjak]

Ford supported the Nazis

Completely irrelevant to what i posted. What else? Did he commit a felony? I don't care. That isn't relevant

 

[Fat Chink]

Completely irrelevant to what i posted. What else? Did he commit a felony? I don't care. That isn't relevant

There was cooperation, and now what?
The question is whether this proves that the Soviet Union was a capitalist state, lol.
You're trying to expose the Soviet Union as a capitalist state and would thereby contradict any historian.

 

[chudjak]

There was cooperation, and now what?
The question is whether this proves that the Soviet Union was a capitalist state, lol.
You're trying to expose the Soviet Union as a capitalist state and would thereby contradict any historian.

I never said the Soviet union was a capitalist state, because it had no bourgeois. What it did have, however, was
1. Commodity production
2. Western help with industrialization and eventually with military during WW2
3. Wealth was not distributed equally, there were elites with manors and servants as stated before and they had plenty of political power.
4. Jews behind the scenes just like in the USA

 

[Fat Chink]

2. Western help with industrialization and eventually with military during WW2

Is this supposed to be a joke?
The Soviets had tanks that surpassed the Western powers.
The Soviets certainly managed this on their own.
The USA came with shitty tanks, just like England...I don't even need to mention France.

3. Wealth was not distributed equally, there were elites with manors and servants as stated before and they had plenty of political power.

That's true. The Soviets had many problems.
But they were a young nation, and this idea had never been implemented before.
They had to deal with many problems, and then came the greatest war in human history.
Under these conditions, a lot definitely went wrong.

 

[chudjak]

Is this supposed to be a joke?
The Soviets had tanks that surpassed the Western powers.
The Soviets certainly managed this on their own

Are you saying that they had no Western help with industrialization and no Western help with military equipment during WW2? Because that's what i stated.

 

[Fat Chink]

Are you saying that they had no Western help with industrialization and no Western help with military equipment during WW2? Because that's what i stated.

During the war, the Soviets built weapons such as the T-34, JS tanks, the anti-tank rifle (PTRS), alltilery, PTRS-41, and the AK47 was about to be released, but it was never used.
In many things they were even superior to the Germans, such as tank construction.
The Germans thought that large tanks would be best.
The Panther had massive problems just getting to the Eastern Front, and the Tiger even more so, and was not adapted to the harsh conditions of the East.
The Soviet tanks were agile, simple, and perfect for the harsh environment.

 

[chudjak]

During the war, the Soviets built weapons such as the T-34, JS tanks, the anti-tank rifle (PTRS), alltilery, PTRS-41, and the AK47 was about to be released, but it was never used.
In many things they were even superior to the Germans, such as tank construction.

They also received $11.3 billion from the USA during WW2. And had Western help building industry in the first place. They were never that autarkic or self reliant, they always had trade with the West and plenty of cooperation even before WW2.

 

[Fat Chink]

They also received $11.3 billion from the USA during WW2. And had Western help building industry in the first place. They were never that autarkic or self reliant, they always had trade with the West and plenty of cooperation even before WW2.

The major battles were fought before Lend-Lease aid.
85 to 90 percent of Soviet weapons and equipment were homegrown.

 

[Fat Chink]

They also received $11.3 billion from the USA during WW2. And had Western help building industry in the first place. They were never that autarkic or self reliant, they always had trade with the West and plenty of cooperation even before WW2.

From 1941 to 1943, the Soviets fought 75-80% of the Wehrmacht divisions alone...

 

[Blackpill Monk]

Because in the 1960s, there was a mutation in Marxism as an ideology. Because white male workers in usa and western Europe the 1950s and 1960s were satisfied with everything and did not want any revolution, because they enjoyed the prosperity of that time. Therefore, the left has mutated into the new left. Now they are not interested in the class conflict between workers and the bourgeoisie or the conflict between the poor and the rich, because from their point of view, white male workers have failed them, because this group is easy to satisfy. But women, racial and sexual minorities, have become the new revolutionary element of the new left, and they have taken the place of the proletariat (factory workers), because fags, foids, and niggers are greedy and insatiable, and therefore they can never be satisfied, because once they get one thing, they immediately demand more benefits, more quotas, and more privileges.

 

[chudjak]

From 1941 to 1943, the Soviets fought 75-80% of the Wehrmacht divisions alone...

And they also outnumbered the Germans. And the Germans also died far less then the soviets did. Look at WW2 casualties, allies vs axis. Allies are majority. Then Germany vs soviets. Most are soviets. The Germans outperformed but the soviets just had endless manpower.

They weren't completely self reliant though, considering they still had trade and cooperation with the West but would've been closer to it then Germany considering vast land and resources.

 

[Fat Chink]

And they also outnumbered the Germans. And the Germans also died far less then the soviets did. Look at WW2 casualties, allies vs axis. Allies are majority. Then Germany vs soviets. Most are soviets. The Germans outperformed but the soviets just had endless manpower.

Germany had long been an industrialized country, but Russia had to be transformed into one by the soviets.
Due to the country's size, it wasn't easy to transition from agriculture to modern methods.
Russia only reacted strongly to the German invasion in Stalingrad and did not exterminate any peoples.
The Germans tried to exterminate ordinary citizens (hence the high casualty rate), while the Soviets did not.

 

[chudjak]

Germany had long been an industrialized country, but Russia had to be transformed into one.
Due to the country's size, it wasn't easy to transition from agriculture to modern methods.

Russia was already industrializing before the Bolsheviks, they simply took over in the middle and then bolstered it with gulag labor, some western support, and high production quotas (that were often lied about).

If we are going to talk about economic comebacks, look at what hitler did in Germany. That was far more impressive.

 

[Fat Chink]

Russia was already industrializing before the Bolsheviks,

Russia was extremely underdeveloped at the time, no comparison to Germany, which was already partially highly industrialized in the 19th century, and Russia only started in 1917. How do you want to compare that...

 

[Fat Chink]

Russia was already industrializing before the Bolsheviks, they simply took over in the middle and then bolstered it with gulag labor, some western support, and high production quotas (that were often lied about).

If we are going to talk about economic comebacks, look at what hitler did in Germany. That was far more impressive.

The Germans lived by plundering the conquered territories; their economy was short-lived and only strong as long as more territory was conquered and plundered.
The Soviet planned economy enabled the widespread industrialization of a country as large as Russia.

 

[chudjak]

Russia was extremely underdeveloped at the time, no comparison to Germany, which was already partially highly industrialized in the 19th century, and Russia only started in 1917. How do you want to compare that...

This is a great Bolshevik myth. It actually wasn't as industrially backwards before the revolution as communist would have you believe.

Also, Soviet economic success was mostly just based off of the continue buildup of industry that started under the Russian empire, they lagged behind the West the entire cold war.

German economic success was due to destroying the Jew system

 

[chudjak]

The Germans lived by plundering the conquered territories; their economy was short-lived and only strong as long as more territory was conquered and plundered.

This is entirely made up because the entire economic recovery happened in the interwar period after the weimar and before WW2. Where did you even hear this from?

 

[Fat Chink]

I get what you're saying, but I think people often forget how poor and undeveloped Russia was before the revolution.


Yeah, there were factories in cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, but most of the country was still stuck in the past. The majority of people were peasants living in villages, without schools, roads, or modern tools. It wasn’t really an industrial country not like Germany or Britain at the time.


And about the Soviet Union they didn’t just continue what the empire started. They built a huge amount from scratch. In 20 or 30 years, they turned a mostly farming country into one that could build tanks, rockets, and even go to space. That didn’t just happen because of the Tsars.


If the empire was doing so great, it probably wouldn’t have collapsed during World War I. That kind of shows it wasn’t strong or modern enough.

 

[Fat Chink]

Where did you even hear this from?

Today we know that Germany was heavily indebted at the time and would have collapsed economically without a war.
Wages were suppressed, unions were banned, and there were fewer consumer goods.
The economy was increasingly geared towards war.

 

[chudjak]

I get what you're saying, but I think people often forget how poor and undeveloped Russia was before the revolution

It almost certainly would've fixed that regardless of the revolution, in fact it probably would've been much better off had there been no civil war and no WW2 caused by communism. Russia was already modernizing, it want going to stay underdeveloped as time passed. Especially considering the tsardom was already gone when the civil war started. The soviets basically just coopted what would've happened anyways and claimed full accountability for all success.

 

[RandomGuy]

I am not a Communist, because Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the State, whereas I want the abolition of the State.

 

[Castaway]

And the ancient Egyptians were actually black, and Jesus was black too.
By the way, Marx, Tesla, and Leonardo da Vinci were all black.
We wuz kings and shit
what you smoked?
Where do you learn history?

It’s true and very well documented. The idea that the Soviets built their entire industry without the help of Western companies is absurd and rooted in propaganda. Do you really believe that they had the necessary expertise and technology to turn Russia into an industrial superpower? Of course not. Stalin knew that he needed the help of the West, as it was where the most advanced industry and technology in the world was located, and he paid very well for it.