The Soviet Union was AGAINST Socialism

Im not russian.
Just note that russian commie hypocrites without balls to go to war were the most vital people in ww2 victory. Also going to war and killing people is not something to be proud off.

Show me the cities with thousands of people USSR nukes, oh wait they
didnt.

And US and France experiments that wipped off pacific islands have a moral high ground.

 

Yeah I know and the minute the Nazi's surrendered we should've put new uniforms on the former Wehrmach, put them under Patton and sent them East until the US flag was flying over the Kremlin and Stalin was a charred corpse like Hitler. to bad the Japanese didn't roll over first.

The Germans would've gladly joined us to throw the Soviet scum back out of Europe.

 

Wet fascist dreams.
The truth is USSR defeated more nazi divisions than US and the red flag flew over Berlin whilst Stalin turned USSR into a superpower.

 

the soviet union was properly as communist as global capitalism is properly capitalism...in other words, not

 

This post is very stupid. I just gave you a load to go on, read this post

Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Socialism is democratic and internationalist. And I dont just mean democratic like ticking a box every 5 years, I mean the workers controlling the economy.

Stalin, as I just said, led a bloody political counter-revolution, he killed tens of thousands of socialists, he killed off the last hope for achieving socialism in Russia.

You need to up your game and type something that is remotely worth replying to tbh.

Clueless, simply clueless. So Obama is slightly more liberal that someone like Bush. Big deal, who cares? There is little difference between what Obama is doing and what someone like Bush would be doing. Anyway, off topic. Say something interesting about Russia, preferably factual.

You have to be more specific. From 1917 there was a civil war, which was over by about 1921. This was a war. In a war you kill the enemy or put them in prison, otherwise they will kill you. The civil war was started by the pro-capitalist generals of the old Tsar's army who ordered their troops to start killing Bolsheviks.

After Stalin took power socialism was abandoned. He killed may people, chiefly two groups, the socialists, and the rich. He killed socialists to prevent socialism and he killed the rich to stop capitalist restoration, which most likely would have ended his reign.

 

No he didnt, this is completely untrue. For christs sake, you sport a sandinista logo, check what Lenin said.

1/10 for effort. 0/10 for historical accuracy.

10/10 for predictable lazy posting. 0/10 for understanding what you are saying.

 

right-o

i thought i was agreeing with you?

but there you go

 

Which is the most (*)(*)(*)(*) poor idea ever concieved by modern man as it takes nothing into account the primal instinct that is encoded in very DNA called The Law of the Hierarchy of Primates.

It is our natural instinct to compete with each other for Social Status which takes it's expression in various forms of Rational Self Interest. Socialism subsumes Rational Self Interest in favor of Collective Interest.

This is an impossible dichotomy to maintain, because there will always be individuals who will put their own self interest above that of the collective and that is how you get to demagogues who can sway the workers to do terrible things in the name of the society like murdering millions of their own people or suppressing free thought and speech.

The sound that always accompanies the death of Freedom is the thunderous applause of the masses.

 

Well, it's the thought that counts. So they say.

You may have thought you were agreeing with me but I beg to differ.

You are right that the USSR was not 'proper communism' and that global capitalism is not 'proper capitalism' in a way, but on it's own that does not nearly suffice.

The USSR was nothing like communism, it was led by Stalin who was actively fighting communism. He was scared of the possibility of real socialism breaking out either in the USSR or elsewhere, because it would mean the end of his rule.

He led a bloody counter-revolution against socialism and communism. His regime was as much like communism as a rotten egg resembles a cake, one ingredient (planned economy), gone off. He killed the real socialists/communists to ensure there was no chance of socialism/communism. The Moscow Trials etc.

Capitalism on the other hand is never 'pure' because a. its not possible and b. the capitalists couldnt give a toss whether its pure or not. It suits them to have governments giving out subsidies, bailouts, import tariffs, big government contracts and so on.

So often I hear the line from right wingers (ok maybe you didnt intend it this way) that there has never been pure capitalism, and their logic is that all our problems are because capitalism is not pure enough. It's a stupid argument. Thatcher and Reagan tried to purify capitalism and the end result was the current global crisis.

The current world system is basically capitalism.

 

Then what are you?

 

But 6 million years of evolution separates us from chimps and bonobos, and bonobos actually live in female dominated societies.

We evolved so much that we can build computers, fly to the moon. We developed complex language. Why? So we could do group activities like hunt, build boats and houses, even 40,000 years ago humans had social networks of over 100 miles.

Class society was impossible until around 10,000 years ago. The strongest and most intelligent may well have been elected leaders, but there was no social division. Early class societies were even overthrown and replaced with consciously egalitarian ones.

In a socialist society you could still gain status in the early years as it evolved towards communism, but the status would be for doing useful things not buying a porsche out of money made driving up food prices on the stock market.

 

well, we arent actually disagreeing.

one thing i would note though, you also hear communists these days, when someone brings up the failure of their system, respond by saying 'well, their has never been pure communism'.

echoes the line you attribute to right wingers, no?

multi national global corps and banks are just socialists on welfare.
the global capitalist arrangements arent true capitalism, they are just a bunch of rules in favour of western and developing (indian, brazilian, chinese, etc) big corps.

they are rigged against african businesses and medium and small western businesses, for example.

take, for example, the recent EU restriction on traditional complementary medicines on spurious 'safety grounds'.
an intitiative pushed thru the EU and UN codex for years by the pharmaceutical corps.

but it comes down to the failure of ideology and any attempt at global governance
history tells us that both always inevitably are not concerned with humanity.

thats why the globalised economy is not dying on its feet from within its own system, just as globalised communism did before that.

 

The reason Stalin took over was not because he was some evil superhuman. It was because socialism was impossible. Lenin clearly stated the basic Marxist theory in the post I linked to earlier, that socialism could only happen in backward Russia if aided by several advanced countries.

 

As I say, the difference is that a bloody political counter-revolution separated Stalinism and Bolshevism, whereas all that separates capitalists from pure capitalism is the reality of capitalism in practice, that pure capitalism is neither wanted by the capitalists nor feasible.

They are not socialists they are capitalists

This is how capitalism works. The people with the most money keep themselves at the top. Capitalism does not and cannot develop evenly, it develops very unevenly.

The slow development of capitalism in many countries was what led to revolutions.

Yes, but Africans dont want a free market either, they want to limit imports which can destroy their economies.

Yes, I know someone who is an expert on this subject in fact, wrote a book on it.

I dont really understand what you mean here. There was no communism. There was no failure of communist ideology if thats what you are saying. What are you saying? And the global economy is dying on its feet, not far off anyway.

 

the last bit you quoted, remove 'not'.
that was a typo.

 

Russia has half the population it did prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Countries in demographic decline don't maintain their power.

 

I don't need to study, I lived there and I know. the libhater here is a total nitwit, the OP has somewhat of an idea. basicaly the whole idea of soviet union was a fraud, in a sense that everyone was not exactly as equal as they say: communists were more equal then others and had special stores, and could take vacations to other countries and so on.

 

How does this refute what I said? Both of your examples are things I ALSO condemn - but how does responding to my point by listing them change what I said let alone refute it?

 

makes more sense then

yes, capitalism is killing the Russians

My mum lives in a house but she isnt a qualified architect or structural engineer.

The idea was not a fraud, why do you say that? Communists were not more equal when Lenin was alive, Lenin and Trotsky had no special privileges. You are talking about Stalinism which as I keep saying was ANTI-COMMUNIST.

Stalinism came about because of the fact that the German and Hungarian revolutions were crushed by military action and the revolution in Russia was isolated. Socialism was impossible in those circumstances.

 

That is a gross simplification of Bonobo society and we are never so "evolved" that we can get away from the basic biological instincts surrounding sexual selection and child rearing. Bonobos are peaceful because they have a gene in them that causes them to instinctually use sex as a means of aggression control and the females are not dominant in their society they are led by a single alpha male just like every other primate society including humans for the most part. It's genetic, it's biological and it can't be changed.

yeah right..a mere 10,000 years of settled living is simply not capable of changing in any significant way biology of how a Primate's mind works. We are still Homo Erectus. We just have more baggage added on top of it.. but he's there and shows up in the most unexpected places. Like a night club at the end of the night.

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). The alpha male whipped the snot out of every other male in the group and took the best 2 or 3 females for himself along with a larger share of the resources to ensure his kids grew up healthy and strong and the beta males fought each other for what was left. We're nicer about it now, but society is still the same. The best females still preferentially choose males with access to resources by instinct. Therefore males compete professionally to show a potential mate he can bring home more resources than the other guy. Which is basically the driving force behind our society. Access to sex, just like Bonobos.

How will women decide who to have sex with if all males have the same access to the same amount of resources? There's nothing to separate the genetically superior ones from the rest.

 

Well, I dont particularly wanna get bogged down discussing bonobos, they are separated from us by 7 million years of evolution.

Yes it is. The environment you live in makes a big difference to how you think. Most people I know wouldnt dream of getting in a fight at the end of a night. We are not homo erectus, we are homo sapiens.

You cant dismiss all the archaeological evidence with one word. Google Catalhoyuk and Cayonu.

 

But his concept of democracy is Party dominated democracy, or rather it would become that.

Actually Chomsky correctly outlined how Lenin was the right of the the other Marxists. The Menshaviks etc, wanted to keep to the traditional Marxist approach that saw and evolution of society, rather than a violent revolution of it. To them, utilization of the state to direct politics entirely towards socialism without the stability of society generally would cause it to lapse into the same system is was before. And then of course there are the anarchists, like Chomsky, who would argue that the entire utilization of the state generally was doomed to see the institutionalization of another form of tyranny and they were right, I think.

 

And a pedophile never calls themselves a baby rapist, doesn't mean they aren't one. Just like American socialist don't call themselves socialist, they are called progressives, or democrats.

 

All true - except the Bolsheviks made no attempt to hold the elections again, and systematically excluded parties and individuals from participating in the new regime for whatever reason defined as 'counter revolutionary.'

Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, anarchists, and other leftists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets. Other socialists revolted and called for "a third Russian revolution." The most notable instances were the Tambov rebellion, 1919–1921, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921. These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually defeated along with the White Army during the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)
The Kadets would be a specific example - many of their leaders were imprisoned. The crack down on worker strikes, the restriction of the press to that within the Soviets and their approved participants, as well as the attack on the Socialist Revolutionaries for the actions of restless terrorists are other examples of the anti-democratic politics they employed.

With their October coup, they established themselves as outlaws. With their disbandment of the Constituent Assembly and announcement as rulers of Russia, they essentially declared war on every other socialist group that wanted a fair say and opposed their leadership.

Disgruntled soldiers who were the initial vanguard of the revolution express the anger of many Russian generally in their revolt and the political demands they made. Tambov revolt is similar. You know the stories. They were all violently suppressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_rebellion

 

You cna disagree, but you cant just say 'oh but it isnt true' without giving a reason and evidence. For example, I can assert that, you may think you are intelligent, when in actual fact you display the traits of a bigot, and my evidence is in the notation on your comment I just described.