Anti-Socialism Thread

[Orostan]

The SED relied on actually winning elections. I don’t have the information right in front of me but I believe most East Germans favored their socialist economic system.

More nonsense. The elections were rigged. In fact one of the things that fed the discontent from 1989 onwards was the fact that the vote rigging was exposed.

The elections weren't rigged and they weren't exactly fair either, the point of me saying that was because the other guy was arguing that the SED held some sort of absolute hold on power and political expression where in reality it was not so simple.

[The New California Republic]

More nonsense. The elections were rigged. In fact one of the things that fed the discontent from 1989 onwards was the fact that the vote rigging was exposed.

The elections weren't rigged and they weren't exactly fair either, the point of me saying that was because the other guy was arguing that the SED held some sort of absolute hold on power and political expression where in reality it was not so simple.

Wrong a third time. Three strikes, you're out. The elections were rigged. And yes the SED did have an absolute hold on power via their control of the National Front, with the other parties therein being totally subservient to the SED.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The elections weren't rigged and they weren't exactly fair either, the point of me saying that was because the other guy was arguing that the SED held some sort of absolute hold on power and political expression where in reality it was not so simple.

Wrong a third time. Three strikes, you're out. The elections were rigged. And yes the SED did have an absolute hold on power via their control of the National Front, with the other parties therein being totally subservient to the SED.

Indeed. This is like saying North Korea is democratic because they have show parties.

[Byzconia]

As much as I hate to admit it, if you think there's no difference between a steady bourgeois hand that will betray your expectations and a full-on personality cult replete with science denial, promotion of domestic terrorism and complete negligence in the face of disaster, then you're duping yourself.

I never said there was no difference, I said there was no effective opposition to the republicans or any of their destructive policies.

Utter nonsense. They really didn't. They were kept firmly under the thumb of the SED via the National Front. And no, the other parties in the National Front were only let off the leash when the SED's power collapsed via mass protests, not before.

The SED relied on actually winning elections. I don’t have the information right in front of me but I believe most East Germans favored their socialist economic system.

I've also seen the stats you're referring to (in regards to East Germans favoring their economic system) and you're not wrong. Even many within the New Forum were reformists who wanted to enact a Dubcek-style democratic socialism rather than abolishing socialism altogether, but in the end abolish socialism is what they did. It doesn't change the way history played out. Fwiw, there are plenty of historical accounts (both from socialist and non-socialist perspectives) that argue the DDR (and many other East European communist regimes) were basically doomed from the start anyway due to the massive economic and physical infrastructure confiscated by the Soviets as "war reparations." Before the war, eastern Germany had actually been more industrialized than the West due to being the seat of Prussian military and industrial power, but once the Soviets were done pillaging the place, they barely had electricity (that's not a joke). The story was very similar in other Eastern Bloc countries the Soviets had "liberated."

It also probably didn't the East German communist brutally crushed a strike so early into their reign, an event that made even devout communist Bertold Brecht take pause at the violence (even openly joking that maybe the government should just "dissolve the people and elect another"). Communist governments didn't exactly have the best relationships with their people, regardless of those people's personal preferences vis a vis socialism as a system (and, indeed, led many committed socialists and communists to become disillusioned and actively start opposing the regimes they had once supported).

[The New California Republic]

[...] the DDR (and many other East European communist regimes) were basically doomed from the start anyway due to the massive economic and physical infrastructure confiscated by the Soviets as "war reparations."

A bit of trivia to expand on that point:

And by comparison the USSR enforced very heavy reparations on the GDR while pretending to be their friends. They took the entire Carl Zeiss factory as well as others back to the USSR and started churning out very close copies of German optics like the Biotar and Flektogon lenses. Hell, the USSR's copy of the latter even won a prize at the Brussels World's Fair of 1958. The Russians were still churning out derivatives of the copied Biotar lenses as late as the 2000s....

[Orostan]

I never said there was no difference, I said there was no effective opposition to the republicans or any of their destructive policies.


The SED relied on actually winning elections. I don’t have the information right in front of me but I believe most East Germans favored their socialist economic system.

I've also seen the stats you're referring to (in regards to East Germans favoring their economic system) and you're not wrong. Even many within the New Forum were reformists who wanted to enact a Dubcek-style democratic socialism rather than abolishing socialism altogether, but in the end abolish socialism is what they did. It doesn't change the way history played out. Fwiw, there are plenty of historical accounts (both from socialist and non-socialist perspectives) that argue the DDR (and many other East European communist regimes) were basically doomed from the start anyway due to the massive economic and physical infrastructure confiscated by the Soviets as "war reparations." Before the war, eastern Germany had actually been more industrialized than the West due to being the seat of Prussian military and industrial power, but once the Soviets were done pillaging the place, they barely had electricity (that's not a joke). The story was very similar in other Eastern Bloc countries the Soviets had "liberated."

It also probably didn't the East German communist brutally crushed a strike so early into their reign, an event that made even devout communist Bertold Brecht take pause at the violence (even openly joking that maybe the government should just "dissolve the people and elect another"). Communist governments didn't exactly have the best relationships with their people, regardless of those people's personal preferences vis a vis socialism as a system (and, indeed, led many committed socialists and communists to become disillusioned and actively start opposing the regimes they had once supported).

I don't feel sorry for the Germans that their railroads were confiscated by a country they absolutely devastated in a genocidal war. Also, most of Eastern Europe benefited from socialism. Those countries industrialized and became more prosperous than their capitalist equivalents. Even East Germany had a faster growing economy than west germany.

The 1953 events you are talking about were a western backed revolt aimed at removing the USSR from Eastern Germany and allowing a united capitalist Germany to militarize at a much greater scale as an aggressive motion against the USSR. Never forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany, and that NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact.

[Orostan]

[...] the DDR (and many other East European communist regimes) were basically doomed from the start anyway due to the massive economic and physical infrastructure confiscated by the Soviets as "war reparations."

A bit of trivia to expand on that point:

And by comparison the USSR enforced very heavy reparations on the GDR while pretending to be their friends. They took the entire Carl Zeiss factory as well as others back to the USSR and started churning out very close copies of German optics like the Biotar and Flektogon lenses. Hell, the USSR's copy of the latter even won a prize at the Brussels World's Fair of 1958. The Russians were still churning out derivatives of the copied Biotar lenses as late as the 2000s....

based, what the USSR did to Germany was absolutely nothing compared to what they did to the USSR and all of Europe. The USSR was right to take reparations.

[Byzconia]

The elections weren't rigged and they weren't exactly fair either, the point of me saying that was because the other guy was arguing that the SED held some sort of absolute hold on power and political expression where in reality it was not so simple.

Wrong a third time. Three strikes, you're out. The elections were rigged. And yes the SED did have an absolute hold on power via their control of the National Front, with the other parties therein being totally subservient to the SED.

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here. Especially after the end of Stalinism in East Germany in the 60s, the government was very open to making concessions to groups that other communist states actively suppressed, such as the Lutheran and Catholic Churches and homosexuals. Agreements were implemented that allowed churches to operate more-or-less freely so long as they didn't involve themselves in politics (a sentiment not exactly foreign to the Western conceptions of separation of church and state or laïcité, though definitely enforced from a more aggressive standpoint than those other two examples). Homosexuals, especially, ended up enjoying far more rights than in the rest of the Second World (and even in West Germany for a time, though they eventually caught up). None of this is to claim the SED were in anyway "good" or to excuse the myriad bad things they did, just that the relationship of power was different within each of the communist states--the so-called "cookie cutter theory" largely being regarded as bunk at this point.

[The New California Republic]

The 1953 events you are talking about were a western backed revolt aimed at removing the USSR from Eastern Germany and allowing a united capitalist Germany to militarize at a much greater scale as an aggressive motion against the USSR. Never forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany, and that NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact.

No. The causes of the 1953 uprising were the increasing work quotas and declining living standards.

[The New California Republic]

Wrong a third time. Three strikes, you're out. The elections were rigged. And yes the SED did have an absolute hold on power via their control of the National Front, with the other parties therein being totally subservient to the SED.

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here.

I was specifically arguing about control at the party level, rather than grassroots level. I'm acutely aware of the fact that dissent did exist at grassroots levels via the churches etc.

[Orostan]

Wrong a third time. Three strikes, you're out. The elections were rigged. And yes the SED did have an absolute hold on power via their control of the National Front, with the other parties therein being totally subservient to the SED.

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here. Especially after the end of Stalinism in East Germany in the 60s, the government was very open to making concessions to groups that other communist states actively suppressed, such as the Lutheran and Catholic Churches and homosexuals. Agreements were implemented that allowed churches to operate more-or-less freely so long as they didn't involve themselves in politics (a sentiment not exactly foreign to the Western conceptions of separation of church and state or laïcité, though definitely enforced from a more aggressive standpoint than those other two examples). Homosexuals, especially, ended up enjoying far more rights than in the rest of the Second World (and even in West Germany for a time, though they eventually caught up). None of this is to claim the SED were in anyway "good" or to excuse the myriad bad things they did, just that the relationship of power was different within each of the communist states--the so-called "cookie cutter theory" largely being regarded as bunk at this point.

Hey man, if you defend historical facts too much you might be called a tankie!

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here.

I was specifically arguing about control at the party level, rather than grassroots level. I'm acutely aware of the fact that dissent did exist at grassroots levels via the churches etc.

what does that even mean?

The 1953 events you are talking about were a western backed revolt aimed at removing the USSR from Eastern Germany and allowing a united capitalist Germany to militarize at a much greater scale as an aggressive motion against the USSR. Never forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany, and that NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact.

No. The causes of the 1953 uprising were the increasing work quotas and declining living standards.

That was some of it, but it's generally accepted by everyone I think that the USA supported it with the goal of getting rid of the USSR in Eastern Germany.

Anyways, a declined living standard and increased work is what you get after starting the most destructive war in history and losing.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here. Especially after the end of Stalinism in East Germany in the 60s, the government was very open to making concessions to groups that other communist states actively suppressed, such as the Lutheran and Catholic Churches and homosexuals. Agreements were implemented that allowed churches to operate more-or-less freely so long as they didn't involve themselves in politics (a sentiment not exactly foreign to the Western conceptions of separation of church and state or laïcité, though definitely enforced from a more aggressive standpoint than those other two examples). Homosexuals, especially, ended up enjoying far more rights than in the rest of the Second World (and even in West Germany for a time, though they eventually caught up). None of this is to claim the SED were in anyway "good" or to excuse the myriad bad things they did, just that the relationship of power was different within each of the communist states--the so-called "cookie cutter theory" largely being regarded as bunk at this point.

Hey man, if you defend historical facts too much you might be called a tankie!

I was specifically arguing about control at the party level, rather than grassroots level. I'm acutely aware of the fact that dissent did exist at grassroots levels via the churches etc.

what does that even mean?

No. The causes of the 1953 uprising were the increasing work quotas and declining living standards.

That was some of it, but it's generally accepted by everyone I think that the USA supported it with the goal of getting rid of the USSR in Eastern Germany.

Anyways, a declined living standard and increased work is what you get after starting the most destructive war in history and losing.

"Historical facts". Unless it criticizes dear leader, then it's bourgeois propaganda!

[The New California Republic]

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here.

I was specifically arguing about control at the party level, rather than grassroots level. I'm acutely aware of the fact that dissent did exist at grassroots levels via the churches etc.

what does that even mean?

It's pretty self-explanatory tbh...

[Orostan]

Hey man, if you defend historical facts too much you might be called a tankie!


what does that even mean?


That was some of it, but it's generally accepted by everyone I think that the USA supported it with the goal of getting rid of the USSR in Eastern Germany.

Anyways, a declined living standard and increased work is what you get after starting the most destructive war in history and losing.

"Historical facts". Unless it criticizes dear leader, then it's bourgeois propaganda!

If it's wrong and i can prove it but still propagated by the media, guess what it is.

[Byzconia]

I don't feel sorry for the Germans that their railroads were confiscated by a country they absolutely devastated in a genocidal war.

While I understand this sentiment (and it certainly makes sense from a certain perspective), from the perspective of building an actually successful socialist state in eastern Germany, it was an extremely bad idea. The Soviets were well within their right to demand punitive reparations, but they essentially shot themselves in the foot long-term by taking almost anything that wasn't nailed down (and even some things that were).

Also, most of Eastern Europe benefited from socialism. Those countries industrialized and became more prosperous than their capitalist equivalents. Even East Germany had a faster growing economy than west germany.

This is true, until it wasn't anymore. The European capitalist countries eventually caught up (and then surpassed) the Eastern Bloc, hence why communism started to falter in the first place. Their economies stagnated and slowed while it seemed (at least in the eyes of many Eastern Europeans) that the West was experiencing a level economic growth they could never imagine. Tbf, part of this image was because of Western propaganda that infiltrated the Iron Curtain, but it had a basis in truth--the West really was overtaking the East and the communist economies really were stagnating and stalling.

The 1953 events you are talking about were a western backed revolt aimed at removing the USSR from Eastern Germany and allowing a united capitalist Germany to militarize at a much greater scale as an aggressive motion against the USSR. Never forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany, and that NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact.

Except every uprising and protest against Soviet occupation was deemed to be "Western-backed" because the "the working classes of Europe could never think of opposing glorious communism!" It all goes back to the Marxist idea that workers who aren't communists are just blinded by their lack of "class consciousness," an extremely cultish idea if I've ever heard one. That said, yeah, I have no doubt that the West would've loved for the communists to be overthrown, that's not exactly a revelation. They were supportive of the Hungarian Revolution, too, doesn't change the fact that the event was legitimate national uprising against communist rule (something the communist regime itself officially recognized later on).

And yes, the FRG and NATO were both formed before the DDR and Warsaw Pact. What about it?

[Byzconia]

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here.

I was specifically arguing about control at the party level, rather than grassroots level. I'm acutely aware of the fact that dissent did exist at grassroots levels via the churches etc.

Fair enough, just wanted to present a balanced view of events.

[Byzconia]

Actually (not to be that guy or anything), that's not entirely correct either. While the SED was not in any way democratic, they also weren't the CPSU. They actually didn't have the level of absolute control you're arguing here. Especially after the end of Stalinism in East Germany in the 60s, the government was very open to making concessions to groups that other communist states actively suppressed, such as the Lutheran and Catholic Churches and homosexuals. Agreements were implemented that allowed churches to operate more-or-less freely so long as they didn't involve themselves in politics (a sentiment not exactly foreign to the Western conceptions of separation of church and state or laïcité, though definitely enforced from a more aggressive standpoint than those other two examples). Homosexuals, especially, ended up enjoying far more rights than in the rest of the Second World (and even in West Germany for a time, though they eventually caught up). None of this is to claim the SED were in anyway "good" or to excuse the myriad bad things they did, just that the relationship of power was different within each of the communist states--the so-called "cookie cutter theory" largely being regarded as bunk at this point.

Hey man, if you defend historical facts too much you might be called a tankie!

While I don't deny that some people certainly do this (unfortunately), it hasn't happened in this thread at all, from what I've seen. People are calling you a "tankie" because you're actively defending North Korea as a democratic state when literally everyone knows it isn't, not because you're making basic factual statements that only the most diehard and insane anti-communists would object to.

[Orostan]

I don't feel sorry for the Germans that their railroads were confiscated by a country they absolutely devastated in a genocidal war.

While I understand this sentiment (and it certainly makes sense from a certain perspective), from the perspective of building an actually successful socialist state in eastern Germany, it was an extremely bad idea. The Soviets were well within their right to demand punitive reparations, but they essentially shot themselves in the foot long-term by taking almost anything that wasn't nailed down (and even some things that were).

Also, most of Eastern Europe benefited from socialism. Those countries industrialized and became more prosperous than their capitalist equivalents. Even East Germany had a faster growing economy than west germany.

This is true, until it wasn't anymore. The European capitalist countries eventually caught up (and then surpassed) the Eastern Bloc, hence why communism started to falter in the first place. Their economies stagnated and slowed while it seemed (at least in the eyes of many Eastern Europeans) that the West was experiencing a level economic growth they could never imagine. Tbf, part of this image was because of Western propaganda that infiltrated the Iron Curtain, but it had a basis in truth--the West really was overtaking the East and the communist economies really were stagnating and stalling.

The 1953 events you are talking about were a western backed revolt aimed at removing the USSR from Eastern Germany and allowing a united capitalist Germany to militarize at a much greater scale as an aggressive motion against the USSR. Never forget that West Germany was formed before East Germany, and that NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact.

Except every uprising and protest against Soviet occupation was deemed to be "Western-backed" because the "the working classes of Europe could never think of opposing glorious communism!" It all goes back to the Marxist idea that workers who aren't communists are just blinded by their lack of "class consciousness," an extremely cultish idea if I've ever heard one. That said, yeah, I have no doubt that the West would've loved for the communists to be overthrown, that's not exactly a revelation. They were supportive of the Hungarian Revolution, too, doesn't change the fact that the event was legitimate national uprising against communist rule (something the communist regime itself officially recognized later on).

And yes, the FRG and NATO were both formed before the DDR and Warsaw Pact. What about it?

1. That might be right, but the Nazis slaughtered thirty million Soviets. Some territorial losses and reparations is the least that could have happened.

2. No, it was true until the end and I have scientific evidence.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/

3. No, it was literally western backed. I think the US even admits this. The outcome of it, just like the Hungarian revolution if it had succeeded, would be NATO expanding. Besides that you have no idea what class consciousness is or what it means.

The reason why I mentioned NATO and the FRG being made first was because it was the start of a trend of western aggression against the USSR and socialist states in general.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

While I understand this sentiment (and it certainly makes sense from a certain perspective), from the perspective of building an actually successful socialist state in eastern Germany, it was an extremely bad idea. The Soviets were well within their right to demand punitive reparations, but they essentially shot themselves in the foot long-term by taking almost anything that wasn't nailed down (and even some things that were).


This is true, until it wasn't anymore. The European capitalist countries eventually caught up (and then surpassed) the Eastern Bloc, hence why communism started to falter in the first place. Their economies stagnated and slowed while it seemed (at least in the eyes of many Eastern Europeans) that the West was experiencing a level economic growth they could never imagine. Tbf, part of this image was because of Western propaganda that infiltrated the Iron Curtain, but it had a basis in truth--the West really was overtaking the East and the communist economies really were stagnating and stalling.


Except every uprising and protest against Soviet occupation was deemed to be "Western-backed" because the "the working classes of Europe could never think of opposing glorious communism!" It all goes back to the Marxist idea that workers who aren't communists are just blinded by their lack of "class consciousness," an extremely cultish idea if I've ever heard one. That said, yeah, I have no doubt that the West would've loved for the communists to be overthrown, that's not exactly a revelation. They were supportive of the Hungarian Revolution, too, doesn't change the fact that the event was legitimate national uprising against communist rule (something the communist regime itself officially recognized later on).

And yes, the FRG and NATO were both formed before the DDR and Warsaw Pact. What about it?

1. That might be right, but the Nazis slaughtered thirty million Soviets. Some territorial losses and reparations is the least that could have happened.

2. No, it was true until the end and I have scientific evidence.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/

3. No, it was literally western backed. I think the US even admits this. The outcome of it, just like the Hungarian revolution if it had succeeded, would be NATO expanding. Besides that you have no idea what class consciousness is or what it means.

The reason why I mentioned NATO and the FRG being made first was because it was the start of a trend of western aggression against the USSR and socialist states in general.

USA admits it? Didn't you say Russia admitting the Katyn massacre was their fault wrong because they were capitalist?

[West Leas Oros 2]

"Historical facts". Unless it criticizes dear leader, then it's bourgeois propaganda!

If it's wrong and i can prove it but still propagated by the media, guess what it is.

Gee, that's what most of this thread has been doing with you. Proving you are wrong, and yet you still propagate your lies about Korea.

[Rusozak]

In all my experiences with apologists for the PRC and NK I feel I can conclude far eastern authoritarian socialism seems to have devolved into a new age fascism. Especially China. The modern PRC is basically Nazi Germany 2.0 with "Aryan" replaced with "Han Chinese" at this point.

[West Leas Oros 2]

In all my experiences with apologists for the PRC and NK I feel I can conclude far eastern authoritarian socialism seems to have devolved into a new age fascism. Especially China. The modern PRC is basically Nazi Germany 2.0 with "Aryan" replaced with "Han Chinese" at this point.

You think the PRC is bad? Juche is even worse.

[Nevertopia]

man if socialism was so great why does it keep losing out to capitalism? Hmm.

[Cordel One]

man if socialism was so great why does it keep losing out to capitalism? Hmm.

They keep getting curb stomped by more established capitalist countries.

Proto-capitalism's been an idea since before the calendar, but it took thousands of years for the bourgeoisie to take control. We've had class warfare since we started using social hierarchies. Beating the side with the upper hand takes time.

[West Leas Oros 2]

man if socialism was so great why does it keep losing out to capitalism? Hmm.

*The CIA would like to know your location.*