Anti-Socialism Thread

[Orostan]

You know, I can't help but feel that the socialist movement would be more effective of less of its adherents dedicated their political project to defending the reputation of a polity that hasn't existed for nearly 30 years. But maybe that's just me.

>noooo you can't learn from the mistakes and successes of the past that's dedicating your entire political project to nothing noooo

Learning from the USSR is incredibly important to socialists who want to actually make a socialist society possible.

[Picairn]

Furr is right

No, he's a literal genocide denier in the same league as Walter Duranty.

[Nilokeras]

You know, I can't help but feel that the socialist movement would be more effective of less of its adherents dedicated their political project to defending the reputation of a polity that hasn't existed for nearly 30 years. But maybe that's just me.

What?! But what would the hundred or so remaining Marxist-Leninists do with their lives?! Build unions? Conduct mutual aid? Build working class consciousness?!?!?

Poppycock. Clearly the best thing to do is get a dual major in polisci and history then spend the next 20 years arguing about the calibre of bullet used in the Katyn massacre while the boiling oceans rise up and drown us all. At least the honour of Stalin and a defunct state will be defended and we can learn... something... from its tractor quota structure before human civilization ends.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They also say that too lol. Russia literally admitted they did it. Furr is a moron and you should stop listening to him.

>noooo you have to believe stuff an anti communist dictatorship said noooo

Furr is right and you are unable to prove him wrong because of that. I can prove a holocaust denier wrong in a million ways but you can't prove me wrong in even one. Besides that everyone says that about anything they believe against something someone else does not believe.

>tfw a nation literally admits fault for a crime and tries to make amends with the nation it impacted but people still say it's fake and done by someone else

This is your mind on blind ideology, good fucking lord

[Talatorrum]

Hello. I am also an ardent opposer of socialism, but I would not define my economic beliefs as capitalist, because it still has some marxist symptoms in common with socialism.

[Debate Proxy 1]

But we have those guns, not you. Because you guys banned guns.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

You are sorely mistaken if you think that the American Democratic Party practices anything remotely resembling a socialist ideology.

I really think every leftist needs to see this.

Reagan was, nonetheless, badly mistaken if he thought caving in to gun control was going to defend capitalism's cause.

[Senkaku]

They also say that too lol. Russia literally admitted they did it. Furr is a moron and you should stop listening to him.

>noooo you have to believe stuff an anti communist dictatorship said noooo

Furr is right and you are unable to prove him wrong because of that. I can prove a holocaust denier wrong in a million ways but you can't prove me wrong in even one. Besides that everyone says that about anything they believe against something someone else does not believe.

because I don't feel like trawling all the way back in this quote chain for wherever it may or may not be, could you review this "proof" you've presented that's so strong it should be taken as factual over the literal statements of the Russian and Soviet states re: Katyn and Stalinist political purges

[Communal League]

You know, I can't help but feel that the socialist movement would be more effective of less of its adherents dedicated their political project to defending the reputation of a polity that hasn't existed for nearly 30 years. But maybe that's just me.

>noooo you can't learn from the mistakes and successes of the past that's dedicating your entire political project to nothing noooo

Learning from the USSR is incredibly important to socialists who want to actually make a socialist society possible.

Of course learning is important. But to me it seems that you are more interested in preserving a particular narrative than undertaking an objective, materialist examination of the way that the USSR was organised. It should also be noted that the utility of the Soviet experience in our present situation is limited, as the prevalent material conditions of the present are distinct from those a century ago. This dogmatism gets us nowhere.

[Senkaku]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

You are sorely mistaken if you think that the American Democratic Party practices anything remotely resembling a socialist ideology.

I really think every leftist needs to see this.

Reagan was, nonetheless, badly mistaken if he thought caving in to gun control was going to defend capitalism's cause.

Reagan was happy to take guns away because the Black Panthers were the ones carrying them when he was governor lol don't be a class reductionist

[Duvniask]

1. Zero evidence that Stalin was paranoid.

First of all, your way of replying is really stupid and confusing and leaves your reader in the awful position of having to guess which parts you're replying to.

Stalin's paranoia is well-attested, not least as regards the Doctors' plot. The purge itself was on a whole other level, but you're so far down the counter-revolutionary path you're supporting a man who had so many Old Bolsheviks killed along with hundreds of thousands of others. And the whole ordeal relied on a barbaric method of justice, extracting confessions, which properly had its place in the Middle Ages.

2. I'd say testimony from people that actually knew the guy about some of the stuff he believed is good enough evidence, maybe you should read that Furr work you said you'd read earlier again?

No, because Furr is not a legitimate historian. I don't care to waste time on his denialism. Go find actual respected historians.

3. Oh for sure there were problems - Stalin did a very good job at getting rid of people like Yezhov who caused the majority of them though.

Problems like 6,000 dead Poles somehow ending up in Mednoye, Tver Oblast.

Problems like Poles being uniquely targeted in the purges.

Problems like the entire Ingush and Chechen population being deported.

Problems like Beria raping and murdering people, including children.

Problems like purging the army whilst allowing incompetents such as Budyonny, Kulik and Voroshilov to remain and influence important military matters.

Problems like promoting Lysenko's garbled up nonsense to the detriment of legitimate biologists, like Nikolai Vavilov who was (initially) sentenced to death.

Continue to simp for the snail stache, man.

4. There is a difference between being stubborn and being right. I'm right, you are stubborn.

Supporting denialists that hold extremely fringe views of history is generally an indication of stubborness.

5. Getting paid for doing a thing doesn't mean there's a labor market, a labor market is a lot larger than a guy being paid to do a thing.

The fuck does that even mean? Did you take in anything I just explained to you?

6. You can't describe Soviet payment systems as wage labor because it is simply not. The Soviet state, even when it paid in piece-rate systems, paid more when productive norms were exceeded more. This is not how a capitalist wage works or even piece payment system works.

What are you even talking about? They were paid more if they worked harder? Holy shit, what an invention, I guess when I impress my boss by how many screws I can put in each hour I have T R A N S C E N D E D capitalism.

There was a constant labor shortage in the USSR and if the USSR had a capitalist labor market we would expect pay to rise constantly

Pay did rise? I just gave you a source about wage inflation, planned and unplanned. It shows planned increases in the range of 4-9% and unplanned increases in the range of 6-13% in the years 1931-1939.

or the country to enter major economic problems, but that never happened because the USSR wasn't a capitalist economy and didn't have a capitalist labor market.

Never had any major economic problems... well, ok, be sure to deny the Era of Stagnation, the huge underground economy, the existence of tolkachis (and the very fact that their existence was necessary to meet targets), the hoarding of labor and resources by enterprises, shturmovshchina, the ratchet effect discouraging enterprises from effectively using resources, the chronic deficit of consumer goods, etc.

Workers changing jobs incredibly frequently makes sense in this situation because the USSR was experiencing an extreme labor shortage through a lot of its industrialization, meaning that workers could move around almost as much as they pleased because there was always work available.

Hmm, big brain thought here, what makes someone change their place of work? Could it be that because there is a shortage of labor that there are others in the labor market who are willing to offer you additional benefits to get that sweet, sweet labor power?

I guess we know the answer: they just changed their place of work for shits and giggles.

To prove the USSR had capitalist wages you have to prove it payed people and determined payment in an even remotely capitalist way, which you can't because it didn't.

I think it's already been established that you don't understand what a "capitalist way" of determining payment is.

7. So then you concede that workers in the USSR had significant control over their own workplaces?

No, it's totally irrelevant to anything I've told you.

8. You just criticized soviet planning for being inefficient while criticizing them in your response to me for not planning their enterprises enough.

It was inefficient and they were incapable of properly planning production. I really have zero idea why you perceive some sort of contradiction there. I have never once said I that I wanted more of the same. In fact, I explicitly stated that it was a misnomer to call it "planning".

9. That's very different from shares, bonds don't entitle the holder to any control over the actions of the organization whose debt it holds.

It opens up a whole can of worms that MLs would like to pretend didn't exist, namely the function of money as more than mere "accounting".

10, 11, 12. Then you don't believe the USSR could have planned its economy in the first place, correct? So what is it you want? No socialism until a magic revolution where all the workers everywhere rise up at once?

Literally blabbering on like a liberal that believes socialism is a blueprint which can be willed into existence.

[Sanghyeok]

>noooo you can't learn from the mistakes and successes of the past that's dedicating your entire political project to nothing noooo

Learning from the USSR is incredibly important to socialists who want to actually make a socialist society possible.

Of course learning is important. But to me it seems that you are more interested in preserving a particular narrative than undertaking an objective, materialist examination of the way that USSR was organised. It should also be noted that the utility of the Soviet experience in our present situation is limited, as the prevalent material conditions of the present are distinct from those a century ago. This dogmatism gets us nowhere.

I agree, we should looking at it objectively instead of trying to defend every action of the state. It's possible to say "US is bad" and "Soviets made some mistakes, although less than the US" at the same time.
Also comrade Orostan, comrade Duvniask I think the two of should calm yourself. The revolutionary masses ought not to attack each other at the first time they disagree, when there are greater threats.

[Debate Proxy 1]

I really think every leftist needs to see this.

Reagan was, nonetheless, badly mistaken if he thought caving in to gun control was going to defend capitalism's cause.

Reagan was happy to take guns away because the Black Panthers were the ones carrying them when he was governor lol don't be a class reductionist

Eldridge Cleaver became a Reagan supporter.

[Orostan]

Furr is right

No, he's a literal genocide denier in the same league as Walter Duranty.

Duranty was an alright reporter.

>noooo you can't learn from the mistakes and successes of the past that's dedicating your entire political project to nothing noooo

Learning from the USSR is incredibly important to socialists who want to actually make a socialist society possible.

Of course learning is important. But to me it seems that you are more interested in preserving a particular narrative than undertaking an objective, materialist examination of the way that USSR was organised. It should also be noted that the utility of the Soviet experience in our present situation is limited, as the prevalent material conditions of the present are distinct from those a century ago. This dogmatism gets us nowhere.

I think I've been objective, the facts support every claim I've made. The world is different from a hundred years ago but we have a lot to learn from what the USSR in terms of the social forces that shaped it and its government/economic structure regardless of that.

>noooo you have to believe stuff an anti communist dictatorship said noooo

Furr is right and you are unable to prove him wrong because of that. I can prove a holocaust denier wrong in a million ways but you can't prove me wrong in even one. Besides that everyone says that about anything they believe against something someone else does not believe.

because I don't feel like trawling all the way back in this quote chain for wherever it may or may not be, could you review this "proof" you've presented that's so strong it should be taken as factual over the literal statements of the Russian and Soviet states re: Katyn and Stalinist political purges

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/res ... n_2013.pdf

Katyn was done by German bullets made in 1941 in an area the germans controlled in winter that year when these people were killed and the people were buried in a way similar to how people killed by the Germans elsewhere were buried. In addition to that children were killed at the massacre, and the USSR never executed children.

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover%2 ... 0japan.pdf

Trotsky was talking to his friends in the USSR, one of the big accusations of the moscow trials, but we only know this from mailing receipts because the actual letters were removed from the archive by someone. We also know for a fact that Stalin and the people around him as well as the American ambassador to the USSR at the time believed the trials were legtimate. I highly recommend reading at least some of this PDF.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Of course learning is important. But to me it seems that you are more interested in preserving a particular narrative than undertaking an objective, materialist examination of the way that USSR was organised. It should also be noted that the utility of the Soviet experience in our present situation is limited, as the prevalent material conditions of the present are distinct from those a century ago. This dogmatism gets us nowhere.

I agree, we should looking at it objectively instead of trying to defend every action of the state. It's possible to say "US is bad" and "Soviets made some mistakes, although less than the US" at the same time.
Also comrade Orostan, comrade Duvniask I think the two of should calm yourself. The revolutionary masses ought not to attack each other at the first time they disagree, when there are greater threats.

Oh, right. And you were the one defending governments that steal guns from workers the last time we met.

[Talatorrum]

The USSR operated exactly like it was supposed to, which was to destroy the natural way of things. The communists were, and still are trying this through their cultural revolutions, purges and reeducations, enabling humanities fall into anarchy.

[Sanghyeok]

I agree, we should looking at it objectively instead of trying to defend every action of the state. It's possible to say "US is bad" and "Soviets made some mistakes, although less than the US" at the same time.
Also comrade Orostan, comrade Duvniask I think the two of should calm yourself. The revolutionary masses ought not to attack each other at the first time they disagree, when there are greater threats.

Oh, right. And you were the one defending governments that steal guns from workers the last time we met.

I will admit my views may differ from my fellow comrades when it comes to the issue of arms, but those are based on some strong emotional opinions I hold.
Regardless, this does not mean I do not understand arguments in favour of arming the proletariat.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Oh, right. And you were the one defending governments that steal guns from workers the last time we met.

I will admit my views may differ from my fellow comrades when it comes to the issue of arms, but those are based on some strong emotional opinions I hold.
Regardless, this does not mean I do not understand arguments in favour of arming the proletariat.

Opportunism, as the Marxists would put it.

[Talatorrum]

I agree, we should looking at it objectively instead of trying to defend every action of the state. It's possible to say "US is bad" and "Soviets made some mistakes, although less than the US" at the same time.
Also comrade Orostan, comrade Duvniask I think the two of should calm yourself. The revolutionary masses ought not to attack each other at the first time they disagree, when there are greater threats.

Oh, right. And you were the one defending governments that steal guns from workers the last time we met.

Giving guns to our adversaries doesn't help either.

[Orostan]

1. Zero evidence that Stalin was paranoid.

First of all, your way of replying is really stupid and confusing and leaves your reader in the awful position of having to guess which parts you're replying to.

Stalin's paranoia is well-attested, not least as regards the Doctors' plot. The purge itself was on a whole other level, but you're so far down the counter-revolutionary path you're supporting a man who had so many Old Bolsheviks killed along with hundreds of thousands of others. And the whole ordeal relied on a barbaric method of justice, extracting confessions, which properly had its place in the Middle Ages.

2. I'd say testimony from people that actually knew the guy about some of the stuff he believed is good enough evidence, maybe you should read that Furr work you said you'd read earlier again?

No, because Furr is not a legitimate historian. I don't care to waste time on his denialism. Go find actual respected historians.

3. Oh for sure there were problems - Stalin did a very good job at getting rid of people like Yezhov who caused the majority of them though.

Problems like 6,000 dead Poles somehow ending up in Mednoye, Tver Oblast.

Problems like Poles being uniquely targeted in the purges.

Problems like the entire Ingush and Chechen population being deported.

Problems like Beria raping and murdering people, including children.

Problems like purging the army whilst allowing incompetents such as Budyonny, Kulik and Voroshilov to remain and influence important military matters.

Problems like promoting Lysenko's garbled up nonsense to the detriment of legitimate biologists, like Nikolai Vavilov who was (initially) sentenced to death.

Continue to simp for the snail stache, man.

4. There is a difference between being stubborn and being right. I'm right, you are stubborn.

Supporting denialists that hold extremely fringe views of history is generally an indication of stubborness.

5. Getting paid for doing a thing doesn't mean there's a labor market, a labor market is a lot larger than a guy being paid to do a thing.

The fuck does that even mean? Did you take in anything I just explained to you?

6. You can't describe Soviet payment systems as wage labor because it is simply not. The Soviet state, even when it paid in piece-rate systems, paid more when productive norms were exceeded more. This is not how a capitalist wage works or even piece payment system works.

What are you even talking about? They were paid more if they worked harder? Holy shit, what an invention, I guess when I impress my boss by how many screws I can put in each hour I have T R A N S C E N D E D capitalism.

There was a constant labor shortage in the USSR and if the USSR had a capitalist labor market we would expect pay to rise constantly

Pay did rise? I just gave you a source about wage inflation, planned and unplanned. It shows planned increases in the range of 4-9% and unplanned increases in the range of 6-13% in the years 1931-1939.

or the country to enter major economic problems, but that never happened because the USSR wasn't a capitalist economy and didn't have a capitalist labor market.

Never had any major economic problems... well, ok, be sure to deny the Era of Stagnation, the huge underground economy, the existence of tolkachis (and the very fact that their existence was necessary to meet targets), the hoarding of labor and resources by enterprises, shturmovshchina, the ratchet effect discouraging enterprises from effectively using resources, the chronic deficit of consumer goods, etc.

Workers changing jobs incredibly frequently makes sense in this situation because the USSR was experiencing an extreme labor shortage through a lot of its industrialization, meaning that workers could move around almost as much as they pleased because there was always work available.

Hmm, big brain thought here, what makes someone change their place of work? Could it be that because there is a shortage of labor that there are others in the labor market who are willing to offer you additional benefits to get that sweet, sweet labor power?

I guess we know the answer: they just changed their place of work for shits and giggles.

To prove the USSR had capitalist wages you have to prove it payed people and determined payment in an even remotely capitalist way, which you can't because it didn't.

I think it's already been established that you don't understand what a "capitalist way" of determining payment is.

7. So then you concede that workers in the USSR had significant control over their own workplaces?

No, it's totally irrelevant to anything I've told you.

8. You just criticized soviet planning for being inefficient while criticizing them in your response to me for not planning their enterprises enough.

It was inefficient and they were incapable of properly planning production. I really have zero idea why you perceive some sort of contradiction there. I have never once said I that I wanted more of the same. In fact, I explicitly stated that it was a misnomer to call it "planning".

9. That's very different from shares, bonds don't entitle the holder to any control over the actions of the organization whose debt it holds.

It opens up a whole can of worms that MLs would like to pretend didn't exist, namely the function of money as more than mere "accounting".

10, 11, 12. Then you don't believe the USSR could have planned its economy in the first place, correct? So what is it you want? No socialism until a magic revolution where all the workers everywhere rise up at once?

Literally blabbering on like a liberal that believes socialism is a blueprint which can be willed into existence.

1. No, I think it's very clear. Stalin's "paranoia" has no evidence behind that and I've already proven it. Read the PDF, liberal.

2. Read the PDF, liberal.

3. Read the PDF, liberal. Also Lysenko wasn't saying anything exceptional for the time and wasn't in any real position of power during the 1930s. Read the PDF, liberal.

4. Read the PDF, liberal.

5. Read the PDF, liberal.

6. Read the PDF, liberal.

7. Read the PDF, liberal.

8. Read the PDF liberal and actually attempt to interpret my arguments in a way that isn't blatantly bad faith.

9. Read the PDF liberal. People want to go where they get paid more even when the state does all it can to suppress that sort of thing. What do you actually want?

10. read the pdf liberal.

11. read the pdf liberal.

12. Was the USSR planned or not, liberal?

13. No, it does not. You've got to get more resources from somewhere if you need that, a bond is asking the citizens to pitch in on the assumption they'll get slightly more resources back in the future. Bonds do not equal capitalism automatically, though they are a big part of it.

14. Answer the question, liberal.

If you had read my sources and considered my arguments you would not be making half of these statements that can be proven wrong just by reading a few pages of a free PDF I linked you.

[Aureumterra III]

Is leftist infighting the main purpose of the anti-socialism thread?

[Orostan]

Is leftist infighting the main purpose of the anti-socialism thread?

Yes, it's the most anti-socialist thing that can be done sometimes lol.

[Nilokeras]

The world is different from a hundred years ago but we have a lot to learn from what the USSR in terms of the social forces that shaped it and its government/economic structure regardless of that.

Every day there is less and less of value in examining the cadaver of the Soviet experiment. Our material and social conditions today are as wildly divergent from 1905 as it was from 1789, and the conditions that produced, guided the growth and ultimately ended the USSR are never coming back because history is not cyclical. Arguing minutiae about railway gauges and blood stains on 1930's confessionals is counterproductive and places ideological purity above the actual workers' struggle.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Oh, right. And you were the one defending governments that steal guns from workers the last time we met.

Giving guns to our adversaries doesn't help either.

If given the choice, workers vote in droves in favor of capitalism and its virtues. Socialism has nothing to offer them; capitalism offers prosperity.

That's why all the proles are voting Trump.

EDIT: Every leftist should read Atlas Shrugged and The Anti-Industrial Revolution, at the very least.

[Sanghyeok]

Is leftist infighting the main purpose of the anti-socialism thread?

Yes, it's the most anti-socialist thing that can be done sometimes lol.

Then perhaps we should consider not infighting? I prefer my leftist friends sipping tea and eating cake, not bashing each other's heads.

[Orostan]

The world is different from a hundred years ago but we have a lot to learn from what the USSR in terms of the social forces that shaped it and its government/economic structure regardless of that.

Every day there is less and less of value in examining the cadaver of the Soviet experiment. Our material and social conditions today are as wildly divergent from 1905 as it was from 1789, and the conditions that produced, guided the growth and ultimately ended the USSR are never coming back because history is not cyclical.

The USSR had its successes and failures, it is important to recognize these features of its economic and political structure so what they did right can be repeated and what they did wrong can be avoided.