|
snip!
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
*nods*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
snip
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I can't wait to fight a socialist in the streets. I hope it's fishmech. please wear your forums name prominently so i can challenge you gangs of new york-style. you might think this unfair, but *points to your post history*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:PSL's website sucks but some skimming suggests they think Cuba is a great accomplishment i agree, an actually existing socialist country providing health care, housing, employment and education to its citizens despite continuous imperialist encirclement/blockading is a massive failure. i'm sure the people who are treated by the huge numbers of cuban doctors who practice abroad feel the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:pretty funny to watch "bernistas" come in here to red-bait, talk poo poo about non-usamerican socialists, and wave endorsements around it's great to see bernie people devolve into john birchers the second any mention is made of actually existing socialism lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
JHVH-1 posted:I used to get newsletters from http://www.cpusa.org like 12 years ago. They don't seem as active these days. I guess they started some other website for news and it covers some bernie stuff but I don't see any active campaigning for any candidates like they used to. party unity! R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
what's a few dead children when there's free college to be had, huh
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
it does, but hey who's this guy marx anyway? he's dead now. shows how much he knows
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Isn't that the guy whose ideas caused every country that tried them to go to hell? you have him confused with john locke
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
not even robert conquest, a guy whose job it was to disseminate anti-soviet propaganda for the british government, calls the famine a genocide lol. the entire country was affected you don't have to look for communist sources on this, american scholars have come out and said it was not manmade here's a thing you won't read and another also re-litigating the soviet union is a great tactic for anti-communists to ignore capitalism's death toll. 11 million people starve to death in a year despite a world food surplus. that food doesn't get to those people because the system that allocates food isn't based on their need, but based on their ability to pay. that is an annual capitalist famine, more massive than anything that ever happened in the ussr. (which, by the way, never had a famine again after the war despite previously suffering famines every other year under the czar)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Yudo posted:So you eagerly support an ideology that promulgated and eagerly justified (or simply covered up) tens of millions of deaths, slavery, unparalleled state terror, repression of personal rights, corruption, incompetence and imperialism but enough about capitalism
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Right, and you need social programs like SNAP to fill that gap. That's what I'm advocating. yes tiny specks of imperial superprofits manage to land in the pockets of the american poor. that doesn't mean global privation is ok lol, or that the lot of the massive american proletariat wouldn't be infinitely better under socialism. there's also no reason to assume socialism in the 21st century needs to operate the same way as the soviet system, anyway, so ussr comparisons are a bit silly in the first place. venezuela's democratic socialism is under assault by the global imperial bourgeoisie and will probably crumble in due time, but their economic reforms massively increased quality of life indexes. we could nationalize wal-mart and in one step be well on our way to a better economic model R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I do think the American proletariat are better now than they would be deprived of political freedom, economic freedom, and food. But also that they'd be better still with mroe unions, more leave (sick, vacation and maternal) and a higher minimum wage. yes a democratic system of government where the working class is actually represented and participates directly in politics is so much worse than the one we have now, where finance capital picks their favored candidates or pays for their loyalty later. and an economic system that extracts surplus value is somehow way way better than one that doesn't
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Horseshoe theory riddle of the day: they want to literally kill an entire group of people just for who they are, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Am I talking about fascists and blacks/jews or socialists and the bourgeoisie? communists the same as fascists, and other chestnuts from the Nazi Rehabilitation Handbook
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:the 19th century indian famines among farmers who were driven into debt only payable with cotton and other cash crops and so could neither afford to grow nor buy food, where the famine was more intense the closer you got to railroads and infrastructure and where iirc the previous government's granaries had been appropriated and sold for profit, are pretty straightforward cases of capitalists and a government protecting their interests intentionally creating food insecurity and choosing not to prevent resultant famine correct. late victorian holocausts is a sick and heavily-sourced book and all anticom dorks should read it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
also pretty incredible to pretend the bourgeoisie are this poor, unrepresented class with no power as if they're the same as black americans lol. yes, the weak bourgeoisie who literally hold an iron grip on the government and economic system of the united states
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
food selection for the petit bourgeois in the most economically advanced country on the planet was superior to that of a developing economy that still managed to go toe-to-toe with said country for much of the 20th century color me surprised
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
"It is regrettable that many of the advocates of the genocide thesis continue to claim Conquest to justify their position, despite his clearly expressed views on this matter. See the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Conference on Holodomor on November 18, 2008. At the conference Nicolas Werth was asked by a participant in the conference, who had attended a lecture given by Wheatcroft, whether Conquest accepted the view that the famine was genocide. Werth strangely replied that ‘we all know in scientific circles the very complicated relations between Conquest and Wheatcroft’; he repeated this several times, but declined to reply to the question. Kul’chitskii more straightforwardly has explained that in June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Holodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)." long-rear end complicated link
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Interesting that its "developing" economy was so bad while it was so powerful otherwise. Maybe there was something wrong with its economic system. i didn't say it was bad, i said it and the us weren't equivalent developmentally. the fact the ussr competed and often outperformed a country with such an advanced economy in metrics like literacy, infant mortality and life expectancy (also lol at the idea of a country doing genocide on its people while also doubling life expectancy) is indication that an advanced socialism would be even more superior Jewel Repetition posted:Btw not everyone who shops at a grocery store is "petit bourgeois." do you know what a food desert is
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:"Holodomor was intentional" - the majority of scholars. you keep saying it was intentional and there's this incredible consensus without providing any evidence. there's internal soviet documents after the archives opened that showed the leadership responded to the crisis. stalin himself privately expressed fear that the ussr would "lose ukraine." the facts don't line up with the genocide hypothesis Jewel Repetition posted:This thread is the only place where I, somebody who's considered a bleeding heart tax-and-spend extreme left winger in their own country, can be labeled rightist or reactionary. It's surreal. i agree, political definitions in the united states are very poorly calibrated due to it being the center of world reaction
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/Davies_Wheatcroft_ch.4_Famine.pdf from the very book you linked: Wheatcroft and Davies posted:'Our study of the famine has led us to very different conclusions from Dr Conquest’s. He holds that Stalin ‘wanted a famine’, that ‘the Soviets did not want the famine to be coped with successfully’, and that the Ukrainian famine was ‘deliberately inflicted for its own sake’. This leads him to the sweeping conclusion: ‘The main lesson seems to be that the Communist ideology provided the motivation for an unprecedented massacre of men, women and children.’ Yudo posted:Except that there is widespread consensus and considerable evidence to support it and you are mulishly denying in much the same way it is denied that climate change is not real or that the holocaust never happened: hand waving and fantasy. The very evidence you cite to support this--Tauger--is aggressively criticized by Davies & Wheatcroft who you also cite ITT. You refute yourself. davies and wheatcroft can be wrong about one thing and right about another!!! i just quoted them again, does that freak you out? get the heck outta here dork and gently caress off with this equating with holocaust/climate change denial. even the ukrainian commission to investigate the famine couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. a majority of russians when polled would prefer the return of the soviet system and this holds true for many of the former republics, but i guess westerners on the internet know better, huh
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
wait lol i actually clicked through and the chapter from davies and wheatcroft also does not argue for genocide, they basically say "stalin hosed up big time," which i agree with. jesus christ do you even read your own evidence
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
you can provide evidence and contextualize your position nonstop but if you don't nod and say yes the soviet union was a hitler demon country where humans were thrown into a meat grinder for sport, that also somehow became a global superpower in less than half a century, you're the same as a holocaust denier so i'm gonna go ahead and only talk about socialism in the 21st century now, what with that being the century in which we currently live
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
in the spirit of the thread's original subject matter i recommend a purge because i've had this argument so many times and literally no one arguing these anticom positions ever changes their mind. this is a waste of my time and yours
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Ah yes, liquidate the counterrevolutionaries, comrade. I agree: Marxist-Leninism has so discredited itself that it is not worth discussing with nonbelievers. look man, there's an actual scholarly debate still going on about the famine. solzhenitsyn, a dude i consider to be a trash person, does not buy the genocide hypothesis. if you're going to compare it to holocaust denial there really isn't much else to say except "i disagree" and leave it at that and if you think marxism-leninism is millenarian you don't know poo poo about it on, like, a theoretical level. so there's even less reason for you to be posting here R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
"the american people vote against their self-interests because they've been fed misinformation to keep them from doing so. however, other choices they make are not influenced by the bourgeoisie, only voting, because voting is the be-all and end-all of politics in the world." — liberalsJewel Repetition posted:Is calling someone a conservative the only trick you can do? the dude made an incredibly stupid post to end a series of other incredibly stupid posts. he's trying to argue about marxism-leninism despite making comments that show he knows nothing about it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
that's not a response to you the obesity epidemic isn't proof of capitalism's success, holy poo poo lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Yudo posted:So, you got nothing, then? marxists do not believe socialism is inevitable or will simply come about due to the flow of progress, nor do we believe it is infinitely sustainable after attainment. dialectical and historical materialism is essential to the theory. counter-revolution in france and imperialist adventurism in the 20th century, culminating in the dismantling of the soviet union, is proof that socialism can and will be assaulted by reactionary forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism Friedrich Engels posted:The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ Vladimir Lenin posted:Early socialism, however, was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm Josef Stalin posted:This, however, does not mean that changes in the relations of production, and the transition from old relations of production to new relations of production proceed smoothly, without conflicts, without upheavals. On the contrary such a transition usually takes place by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the old relations of production and the establishment of new relations of production. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm Jewel Repetition posted:I seriously don't even get what point Homework Explainer was trying to make with that thing I quoted. i'll unpack it a bit more. governments and economic systems can be defined, theoretically and historically, both by what they do to or for their people and what they prevent their people from doing. politics and economics are omnipresent, they affect every aspect of our lives, both in the things we can and cannot do. capitalism promises the infinite, it promises unlimited freedom of choice and unending possibility when it comes to economics and politics. you made use of this sort of aspirational thinking in your example of the "business owner" who somehow manages to become a member of the bourgeoisie from the very bottom of the economic ladder. every day the working class is bombarded with propaganda of letter and deed that capitalism and liberal democracy is the best possible system, where any change can happen given enough time and popular will. it in many ways is more millenarian than socialism, especially the way liberals tend to look at it in terms of elections and the observable political process. this infinite promise is taken to be true without question for most people, with some questioning for others. but the truth is, there are things that are not possible under capitalism. the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, will never, ever allow the relations of production to change, for one. the more entrenched the capitalist class becomes, and the more superprofits that can be extracted via imperialism from less-developed nations, the less they'll allow, because capitalists become less reliant on domestic labor for surplus value. the best, most socially democratic period in the united states (almost exclusively for whites, of course) was when the strength of the soviet union became a threat to the american imperial ruling class, and so that class gave more in concessions to the proletariat to prevent revolution. now that threat is gone. the people have become less and less class conscious. there's less need for concession. and the real american left, the anti-capitalist left, is practically dead and buried. we're seeing the dissolution of european social democracy now, too, which is what happens when class struggle abates. the failure of barack obama to enact meaningful reforms — which i'm not sure isn't just the system working as intended, considering how quickly he was embraced and enveloped by the capitalist class and its representatives in government — is evidence of this. the failure of a president sanders or a president trump to curtail imperialism will be more evidence if they are elected. the election of hillary clinton will be a really obvious piece of evidence if that happens. mass movements in opposition to capitalist interests are infiltrated, otherwise disrupted, or crushed with state violence. see: the government's response to occupy wall street and black lives matter, the student movements of '68, anti-wto protests, iraq war protests, the list goes on. tiny, tiny left groups get fbi spooks sent in on a regular basis. look up brandon darby. the point being, the wishes of the ruling class infiltrate most things we do. they are the class the state represents. it is, as marx said, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. liberals acknowledge this when it comes to the voting patterns of the working class, understanding pretty intuitively the way propaganda works via obvious cudgels like fox news, but they don't seem to see it elsewhere, in the way buying decisions, social relations, etc. are also determined by the ruling class. class is all over the place but there are only certain manifestations that are part of mainstream conversation. which is, of course, exactly how the bourgeoisie likes it. boy that was a long post! this, i feel, is a more productive line of discussion instead of "how many million billion trillion people did the ussr kill"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Yudo posted:So, Marxism and Marxist-Leninism is millenarian after all? y'know, i think jewel repetition's premises and arguments are flawed, but i will say they're engaging us on merits and not acting in bad faith. you've got multiple marxist-leninists in here telling you why your understanding of the theory we absolutely know better than you is wrong, and i even posted quotes from actual revolutionaries as rebuttal. marxism-leninism is not deterministic and your attempts to link it with apocalyptic christianity are wrong. but you're not interested in talking about that, you'd rather do the posting equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "yankee doodle dandy." not replying to you anymore Jewel Repetition posted:Learning about a specific business as an employee and going on to become an entrepeneur isn't infinite. It's a finite change. that kind of limited social mobility is, in reality, rare. which is my point. capitalism tells us all things are possible when in all likelihood only a very few are. Jewel Repetition posted:The theory that economic leftism can only flourish when there's fear of revolution doesn't account for Obama's turn left from the Bush years. And it looks like we're gonna go further pretty soon. in addition to what the above poster said in response to this, if you're referring to bernie sanders he's basically an eisenhower republican or, at best, a new deal democrat. that's not a left turn, that's gaining back ground won in the middle of the 20th century, the very time i mentioned when the country was at its most socially democratic. this is what frustrates me about bernie. the window of political possibility has narrowed so much that dwight eisenhower with a d next to his name is the great "left" hope. that's not heartening to real leftists, or at least it shouldn't be. that's how effective the ruling class is at shaping the narrative, though! another thing worth mentioning, if the anticoms itt want to have a real discussion about actually existing socialism (they don't, when spouting ad hoc received wisdom is so much more satisfying, with so little effort expended) it's important to keep in mind we haven't seen a socialism not under unflinching attack and encirclement by imperialism. russia is, as always, an excellent example, but cuba works really well for this too. the country was under heavy blockade and sanction from the moment of its marxist turn, yet still managed to keep people housed, educated and healthy. even during the special period social services weren't dismantled or diluted. it's not magical thinking to wonder how much better things could be in socialist nations without the omnipresent threat of subversion or outright military invasion, as with the bay of pigs and the american wars in vietnam and korea. chavez was a moderate left leader and only turned to socialism when the united states coup in 2002 didn't stick. imperialists keep shooting themselves in the foot for a reason: they rightly fear the people their capitalist state doesn't represent. PleasingFungus posted:The stalinists in the thread have already clearly shown that those tens of millions were killed by natural causes, not manmade ones, and if they were manmade it was an accident, not on purpose, and anyway even if they did it on purpose capitalists did it first. I think the facts are clear, here. no one has argued this shaky line of causality. the famines were a massive fuckup that authorities should have responded to more quickly, but they were the last famines in a country that had pre-revolutionary famines every year or two. the same is true of china. life expectancy doubled in socialist countries over their decades of operation, so the "murder factory" line of propaganda just does not work. Josef Stalin was a Good Christian who did Nothing Wrong. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Part of the problem when considering the failures of socialism versus capitalism, is that socialist failures have more easily identifiable "villains." Those failed policies were directed by individuals, as part of a social program to guide the development of their respective societies. When a socialist system fucks up it's because a person hosed it up. i don't agree with this, comrade. individual actors making unilateral choices is great man propaganda that the west pushes in opposition to actually existing socialisms. the way those governments operated, and the way power was diffused among committees, soviets, etc., shows the "dictator theories" of those countries to be a pretty appalling misrepresentation of the way they functioned. gensecs were heads of state for most countries, yes, but there's absolutely no chance they made every political and economic decision for those countries, or even most of them. i'd argue more that because the government takes a larger role in economic planning that the "individual" you refer to is the government itself and not necessarily the head of state or specific central planners. everything else is 100 percent correct. a cool thing on relations of production, governance, etc. another team overhead smash posted:Long story short you can have a society where people collectively own the means of production, like say in a modern co-operative, without having death on a massive scale. Hell, even the messed up countries like China and the USSR only had these deaths for specific periods of a few years. The deaths aren't a inseparable part of Communism. On the other hand you can't have Capitalism without death on a massive scale. There hasn't been a single day where the Capitalist exploitation of the poor by the rich (and especially the poor in poorer countries) can't resulted in massive amounts of needless and avoidable death. while i agree that socialism now doesn't have to take the form of past socialisms, the way firms worked in the soviet union is very much like a cooperative, even more aggressively so since such a large percentage of workers were in the union and had a government guaranteeing their rights, and their participation both in the direction of the firm and the greater political process. from the first book above:  team overhead smash posted:Lastly Stalinism is terrible and no-one should try to sell you on it (Most socialist/communists hate Stalinism anyway) and I just wandered into this thread without specifically supporting the PSL to have a look and see what it was about. The PSL completely turned me off with that "Assad is not a butcher" stuff that someone posted. If they're willing to brush away massive killings and oppression, they're not the dudes I want in charge of running my revolution. Socialist Party USA seems like it'd be a safer bet that's more in line with traditional egalitarian and humanitarian beliefs although I don't know too much about them either so sorry if it turns out they support electing Mao's corpse as president for life and want to make him a tomb out of a billion baby corpses or something then sorry for the bad recommendation. stalinism isn't a real historical category of marxism, imo. stalin himself refused the term and continuously asserted himself a marxist-leninist. "stalinism" is a trotskyist construction that has been used as anti-soviet propaganda to great effect. i'll joke about "the lion assad" on occasion. there are criticisms to be had against him, ones i'll gladly discuss with other anti-imperialists. but man, i gotta tell you, american imperialism is far worse than assad or putin. the us government really does preside over a perpetual death machine and the consequences of this are remote to those of us living here but all too real for the people under attack by imperial power. the entire region has been destabilized by military adventurism and subversion campaigns against unfriendly governments. the overthrow of gaddafi has led to a previously unimaginable drop in quality of life for libyans. libya used to enjoy the highest QoL indexes in all of africa, and since the civil war, those figures have plummeted. whole regions of the country are outside the government's control. many live without electricity or clean drinking water. the same is true of iraq and syria. the war in syria — one which we certainly fomented — has been, as we all know, devastating. arming and training the fsa has been an unmitigated disaster. arms for that force have fallen into the hands of al-nusra and isis, islamist groups that we all recognize as dangerous extremists. we knew this would happen and did it anyway. rebels in madaya are keeping food for themselves and selling some to civilians in the city for exorbitant prices. the people there are starving and the west has decided to pin this on the saa as a huge propaganda push for regime change. assad himself recognized how much destruction was being waged by civil war and was willing to step down but this offer was rejected by the imperial powers, as the assumption had been that assad would be overthrown and a more friendly government put in place. the protracted war strengthened assad's resolve, and now that isn't an option. if your issue is "massive killings and oppression" then assad doesn't even warrant a mention next to the ravages of the imperial bourgeoisie. this is not to say his government is blameless, but there's just no comparison. imperialism is a cancer on the planet and must be stopped. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
some links not associated with current discussion the horrors of actually existing socialism i'm sure we know better than russians what they want for themselves man, the people of the former soviet republics just don't know how good neoliberalism is, huh as far as what's being talked about goes, Jewel Repetition posted:Eisenhower was cool, but Bernie is still to the left of him. And regardless of whether we've been where we're going before in the past, it's still a left turn from where we are (and were under Bush). So again, it goes against the idea that we can only move left when threatened with revolution. Also I consider myself a real leftist and it would be heartening to me if Bernie Sanders won, because he's exactly as far left as I want to go. well yes, we're seeing this turn because we're in a period of crisis. the american working class knows something's up but class consciousness is at a minimum so it's getting channeled in campaigns like sanders' or worse, trump's. and trump's got the better chance of winning at this point. crisis is built into the capitalist system and it's at these most vulnerable moments countries teeter on the brink of fascism. the only reason we haven't gone full fascist at home yet is because we're extracting superprofits from the global south. Jewel Repetition posted:It just sounds like a flimsy excuse to me. America also faced the same "threat of subversion or outright invasion" as Russia did during the cold war and it did just fine. Socialist countries will always fail, and there'll always be something you can point to besides the ideology to explain it. they really really didn't face the same threat. the united states remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons on sovereign territory, the us military made incursions into countries daring to self-determine and bombed the gently caress out of most everyone else when the cia wasn't organizing and funding coups. "killing hope" by william blum is probably the most comprehensive text on this. compared to the united states' imperial entanglements in the 20th century the soviets were practically pacifists. afghanistan and that's about it, and that was in defense of a secular egalitarian government being uprooted by the imperial bourgeoisie. the us got involved and cultivated al qaeda and the taliban. these groups plague the region to this day along with the islamic state, which the united states has seen as a strategic asset in ousting unfriendly governments. who are the good guys in this scenario? Jewel Repetition posted:Okay, but most capitalist economies don't have any starving people, so how is it a necessary feature of capitalism? They're arguing that my ability to buy a frozen pizza is causing African children to starve, and I want to know all the steps of the Rube Goldberg machine that goes from my grocer's freezer to their stomachs. it's not your ability to buy per se, it's the misallocation of food resources that leads to a global surplus and millions starving to death every year. you're kind of atomizing this, which isn't unusual R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
re: trade unions competing with communist party trade unions in the socialist republics, it's important to remember that non-aligned unions were almost entirely front organizations for imperialist destabilization. most famously the solidarity movement in poland was literally funded and supported by the cia. midway through the 20th century the west figured out trade unions were the perfect vehicle to topple communism, as soviet citizens and american leftists alike would be sympathetic to a union wanting more power. this operation was obviously a smashing success in poland and the rise of trade unionism in china is a continuation of that policy edit: this doesn't deal with unions specifically, but check this poo poo out. the cia was all over the place and that is a badass platform that will never be seen on a democratic party candidate's website or wherever R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
woah maybe the anticoms are right, look at how desperate things are in the socialist republ — oh wait
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
let's not forget that any government acting against the interests of the united states, i.e. nationalizing its resources or daring — gasp — to elect a socialist leader, is gonna get hardcore imperial intervention, whether that's straight military invasion or the manufacture of a coup or uprising
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
fade5 posted:We seem to have changed that policy a bit, we're backing the socialists in Syria militarily now. we're still desperately trying new avenues to get assad out, though, when that would be an incredibly stupid move. and we're trying to have it both ways with the pkk and turkey, which is a bummer. this follows our campaign of arming and training fsa personnel who "incredibly" joined islamist militias. i will agree this foreign policy is at least a little bit different, though still imperialist
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:That only happened when communism was a real threat to us. Now we're gradually improving relations with Cuba, trading with "communist" China, leaving the DPRK to their own devices unless they try to nuke us, and actively supporting Syrian socialists. honduras, libya, syria, iraq, afghanistan, ukraine, montenegro, haiti, venezuela, iran, have all had coup attempts, invasions or destabilization campaigns leveled at them post-collapse of the soviet union. i'm probably forgetting some!!! Mofabio posted:Even if, in the glorious communist revolution, everybody got to leave their soul-sucking jobs tomorrow, there would STILL be pizza ovens in the world. They don't disintegrate, there just won't be low-paid people to operate them by your tummy's whims. Because there's no private property, you just walk to the former Dominos and use their ovens, and they don't call the cops to arrest you. some people itt have weird ideas about how actually existing socialism works
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Loling at the fact that no one is using this thread for what it was made for because the PSL is awful no it turned into the usual rolling out of the anticom arguments just like any time actually existing socialism is brought up itf. the psl is fine though the leadership is pretty stodgy and set in its ways
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Okay let's assume There's just been a communist revolution you can go to the newly nationalized Our-Mart supercenter and purchase your ingredients with currency earned at full labor value. there's no reason you couldn't have a pizza oven at home, and with guaranteed housing/vacation time and a 30-hour work week you can hone your pizza-making skills further either as a hobby or as a vocation in one of the many restaurants that would still exist. pizza boldly, comrade. Jewel Repetition posted:The most socialist economies I'm aware of are the DPRK, a hellhole, and Cuba, one of the most corrupt places on Earth. Is that what you're referring to? can you prove either of these qualitative statements. we've been over cuba already itt
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:- Lenin, in "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" i love when it becomes painfully obvious anticoms haven't read a word written by actual revolutionaries or even marx/engels for that matter
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 01:15
|
|