What are
/r/DebateCommunism's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/DebateCommunism:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/DebateCommunism:
Academia.edu
NPR News
Yandex.Translate
DocDroid
Meduza
Wikipedia
Encyclopedia.com
NationStates
Abandonia
Google Sites
Quora
Teletype.in
Sci-Hub
GeoGebra
Microsoft Bing
The most popular reviews in /r/DebateCommunism:
You should get your relative a copy of "the people's republic of Walmart", which dismisses the capitalist myth of the so-called "inefficiency" of centralised planned economies. It turns out not only can computers anticipate supply/demand curves, but already do it all the time and are the reason why corporate juggernauts like Walmart, a private economy unto itself that's about the size of Sweden's entire national economy, can function.
Hm?
You must remember that the Soviet Union was for the most part alone in the world. Stalin by no means wanted to be friends with Hitler, but was forced to take the NAP out of necessity. The Western powers refused to come to the table with the Soviet Union over the problem with Fascist Germany. They hoped that the two would destroy each other. President Truman even said during the invasion of Russia ""If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible".
War was inevitable between Russia and Germany. They signed the pact (which granted the NAP along with some commercial deals) with the intention of buying time. Nicholas the second had left the economy in a mess before the revolution, Russia was poorly industrialized etc.
edit:
If you're interested in modern Russia (from the 1800s onwards) and want to steer clear of political books; I'd recommend "A History of Russia- People, Legends, Event, Forces".
To add on to point #2:
> [T]he inequality of fortune . . . introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation . . . [and] to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs . . . [T]he maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
One would think someone like Marx or Engels wrote this, but it was actually written by Adam Smith, father of capitalism [The Wealth of Nations, book 5, pp. 412-3]. Funny, huh?
I'm just gonna add some extra resources for this idea:
Short article
Yes, a Planned Economy Can Actually Work
Bigger book
Just be mindful that both are from Jacobin, it's a good source that can be a little problematic sometimes.
David Harvey's work The Limits to Capital is basically the standard work now on Marxist Economic theory. Beyond that, Paul Sweezy's The Theory of Capitalist Development, and Ernest Mandel's Marxist Economic Theory are also standard texts (although be careful of Sweezy since his interpretation is somewhat heterodox; put briefly he blamed underconsumption rather then overproduction as the main cause of crises and didn't believe there was a tendency for a falling rate of profit as a result of the labor theory of value; this led him to adopt a position often called "Keynesian Marxism").
If you just want a book on general economic history, then Robert Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers is the best book available, although it doesn't really go into neoliberalism which is a huge blind spot now. David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism is basically the standard leftist work on the subject; while Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine cover's similar territory although focusing less on western nations and more of a narrative history.
As for socialist economic theory (aka, the type of economy socialists want to create); then Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, and The Civil War in France, Lenin's State and Revolution, and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky; Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed; Oskar Lange's On the Economic Theory of Socialism; Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism; Alec Nove's The Economics of Feasible Socialism; Pat Devine's Democracy and Economic Planning; and David Schwieckart's After Capitalism; are all important texts (including several focused on the new trend of "market socialism"), although IMO Toward's a New Socialism is more or less essential reading, since it argues as to how a planned economy is even a viable option.
The Contradictions of Real Socialism by Michael Lebowitz is also more or less essential reading in that it shows precisely what went wrong with the Stalinist system.
Well, I'm an actual economist, and this question is economics. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations' addressed this very question.
In short, output is a function of labor and the capital stock. The more capital stock per unit of labor, the higher the output.
The amount of labor available is an output of the decision each individual makes as he allocates his time between work and leisure.
The amount of capital is a function of individual decisions allocating money between works 'tools' and consumption 'toys'. Investment in each period increases the capital stock, depreciation lowers it.
So...
Output per individual is work^a x tools^b x some constant
while
Utility = leisure^c x toys^d x some other constant.
Maximize the current value of the sum of expected future utility, given some discount rate on future utility and some depreciation rate on capital.
The solution is the wealth of that society. More wealth = more investment = higher capital stock.
Anything that discourages investment will make the society poorer.
Unless you are Saudi Arabia natural resources are pretty much irrelevant. Note that neither Singapore nor Hong Kong have natural resources, but both are quite wealthy.
So MLs don't like the term Stalinist, and you may or may not get the gist behind why, but if it's not too much to ask (after you've already done the reading), I'd recommend a couple podcast episodes...cuz it takes a while to explain the nebulous ideology behind "Stalinist regime" and any attempt to meet that concern.
The first is from RevLeft Radio, they do a deep dive critique (from an ML perspective) of the Soviet Union under Stalin https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/joseph-mother-fucking-stain
The second is from Red Menace, a sister podcast to RevLeft. It explains some points in State and Rev that I think is too difficult to get in to on a reddit thread https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9yZWRtZW5hY2UubGlic3luLmNvbS9yc3M&ep=14&episode=N2ZlZGQ4NjVkZDExNDI0MzhhNTdlZjc0YTFkYjU1NzY
I started off as an ancom, vvv skeptical of "Stalinism" (as do all modern American leftists I feel), but I saw my perspective changing as I put things in proper contexts. I hope this helps, it'll definitely do more than me trying to explain anything lol
No, the labor theory of value is not accurate and is not wedded to communism. Actually its not even understood let alone accurate, even from those you see that will try to defend it.
Attached is the Critique of Marx's Value Theory
https://www.academia.edu/34227320/Critique_of_Marxs_Value_Theory_patched_
Wow. What a good counter argument. I am sorry you cannot see that your support of suppressing hate speech will be used against you first chance someone gets.
And here we have the root of it. I'm sorry you're misinformed. Check out. https://www.wikipedia.org/
That is how you sound. That is how loony tunes you sound.
>the meaning is more or less the same.
No, they're not. Here's a list of synonyms for 'horrible'. You won't find 'self-contradictory' or 'absurd' anywhere. Don't want to be snarky, but I chose my words carefully. The matter is over a statement of facts and deductions from sociological concepts, not attributing moralistic opinions to the state.
>A term I made up to distinguish the bourgeois vs the proletariat from what other "lesser" classes there are.
Oh, okay. This still doesn't make sense. Capitalism reduces all classes into two basic camps: those that support the continuation of the status quo, the bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the landlords, etc., and those that have a material interest in abolishing the status quo, urban and rural wage-laborers, the unemployed, the poor peasants, etc. These 'lesser' classes are politically mute in the West (and becoming obsolete in the East, as more and more people are becoming proletarians instead of peasants) and can't exist without the existence of the bourgeoisie and proletariat in today's society. Moreover, so long as the state exists, it is the expression of particular class interests. To say that there is a state in a society with no classes (you say 'lesser classes would exist in this time, but again, they can't) is a paradox.
There's neo colonialism that was literally made by Communists-
https://store.steampowered.com/app/333540/Neocolonialism/
And there's Hidden Agenda, which is a great little game where you take control of a small South American country during the cold war and make decisions by talking to workers and farmers. If you actually try and help your people by making socialist decisions rather than opening yourself to exploitation, the more likely the US is to overthrow you.
http://www.abandonia.com/games/138/download/hiddenagenda.htm
There's neo colonialism that was literally made by Communists-
https://store.steampowered.com/app/333540/Neocolonialism/
And there's Hidden Agenda, which is a great little game where you take control of a small South American country during the cold war and make decisions by talking to workers and farmers. If you actually try and help your people by taking a socialist stance rather than opening yourself to exploitation, the more likely the US is to overthrow you.
http://www.abandonia.com/games/138/download/hiddenagenda.htm
Human nature isn't fixed, and hunter gatherer societies were largely egalitarian.
As for the ECP, why don't companies themselves suffer the same problems? It could be argued that corporations could become extremely efficient if they set up an internal market and price signalling system. Are there any examples of companies that have done this?
The failure of the LToV is mostly attributed to the transformation problem. I'll admit that Marx made a mistake here, but there have been corrections in modern times that essentially patch the inconsistency. This is about as clear an explanation you can get.
Indeed. Capitalism is killing the sharing of knowledge and science to such an extent that capitalism has had no recourse but to create sci-hub.st, sci-hub.se, sci-hub.do and other sharing sites. The gall of capitalism!
No, they set up in the countryside & many volunteered straight away.
Crimean Tatars actually gathered up thousands of locals & turned them over to the Nazis as prisoners of War. Crimean Tatars tortured Jews & communists
"After Hitler’s defeat and calculation of losses, it became known that 85.5 thousand newly made “slaves” of the Third Reich only from the civilian population of Crimea were actually stolen to Germany. Almost 72 thousand were executed with the direct participation of the so-called “Noise”. Schuma is an auxiliary police force, and in fact - punitive Crimean Tatar battalions subordinate to the fascists. Of these 72 thousand, 15 thousand Communists were brutally tortured in the largest concentration camp in Crimea, the former collective farm "Red""
The Red Army POWs were not the main body of the collaborators.
""February 1942 the eloquent testimony of the mobilization of German Marshal Erich von Manstein: “... the majority of the Tatars of the Crimea were very friendly towards us. We succeeded in forming armed companies to defend the Tatars whose mission was to protect their villages from the attacks hidden in the Yila rebels. On our side, they saw in us their liberators from the yoke of Bolshevism, especially because we respected their religious customs"
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories-Memoirs-Hitlers-Brilliant/dp/0760320543
Yeah, no problem! First, I'm defining full communism as either everyone controlling the means to their own existence (everyone makes their own food, clothing, etc.) or as everyone being paid equally or with only slight variations.
Personally, I see capitalism as a stimulant to economic and societal growth. To completely dismiss it out of hand with out at least acknowledgement of its merits is foolish. Perhaps you've read this work, The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith? If not, summarized, it's the Communist Manifesto to socialism for capitalists. In this work, what Adam Smith espouses is the strength of free enterprise and how free enterprise leads to improved society. However, this work is often used to justify an anti-socialist viewpoint and a laissez-faire economic policy. Instead, I would argue that, duly noted in The Wealth of Nations, it is singularly entrepreneurial enterprise that improves society. To be more specific, I believe the true scourge is not capitalism but big business. Franchises. Walmart is the largest retailer in the world, and one of the cruelest. Big business must be struck down wherever it rears its ugly head. What this means is that when companies spread their reach too far, then they should be divided, and the divided company further divided as to be controlled effectively by its employees. Now, I am not a policy maker nor a sociologist or MBA, so I can't speak to specifics, but there you are: my beliefs.
> Any complex economy has to divert some of the net social surplus to service maintenance costs
This makes no sense.
My response, pointing out how it didn't make sense. Made sense.
The "net social surplus" would be a numerical value, correct? It would be less multiple variables but in the least a variable called "service maintenance costs", correct?
My point being, you appear to make a shotty attempt at a "ends justify the means" argument. My point is they do when they do.
It's not useful to restructure the argument because I made it for your benefit and you've yet to engage me in a discussion about beliefs, since I'm trying to change your mind and my mind.
Human productive energy which is powered by happiness and sunshine drives the whole thing you moron. Unless no one wants their babies to be happy.
If it's not about working conditions, what's it about?
Holocaust to name one.
Your definition is incredibly broad; hence, a terrible definition. Look in a dictionary or the 14 characteristics of fascism for a more accurate description
How was Marx the 'father' of 'dialectical materialism'? He didn't formulate this doctrine.
Also, explain to me how anarchism is a petty bourgeoisie ideology. There have been numerous historical examples of self-governing mutual aid societies, e.g. the Korean peoples association. You seem to assume that hierarchical societies are natural. They're not and we know this from anthropological work on primitive societies.
Also, you just tried to use the WWS article to debunk the entirety of a qualified philosophers' work on Marx, and brought up Luis "I was afraid of being found out for a fraud" Althusser (This was something Althusser wrote down privately. He thought he didn't understand capital well enough and that his division between the young and old Marx was spurious. He was afraid of being shown to be a fraud. This book has the citations), cited Stalin, and made the "don't listen to academics cuz they are bourgeois" argument, like I can't.
Cuba, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, all these countries had to fight against US for democracy. US supported dictatorships in Argentina and Brazil (my country), and others. Honestly, you are neither the first nor the last child of the defeat of the revolution that comes to teach us how terrible your country was. Communism is not just Lenin and Stalin or russian thing.
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Veins-Latin-America-Centuries/dp/0853459916
>He was overruled on numerous occasions by the Supreme Soviet.
In the early period of party infighting - sure.
>“Leader” does not mean “autocrat”. One can be, say, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, without being in uncontested power over the council of ministers.
Yes, theoretically. I think that it is safe to say that Stalin did indeed had the final say in every important political matter, and was, after all, the real ruler of the Soviet Union.
>I recommend reading Soviet Democracy for more on this subject.
Thanks. In turn, I'd first and foremost recommend reading Nomenklatura.
https://www.amazon.com/Nomenklatura-Soviet-Ruling-Michael-Voslensky/dp/0385176570
"Main Currents of Marxism" by Kolakowski, while slightly different in terms of scope, also touches upon the question of Soviet regime.
Finally, I will come to the number of mortalities in this period. To quote prof. J Arch Getty:
>From 1921 to Stalin's death, in 1953, around 800,000 people were sentenced to death and shot, 85 percent of them in the years of the Great Terror of 1937-1938.
This is completely against the notion of the "10s of millions of deaths ". To these figures must be added an important qualification: contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of gulag inmates were not innocent political prisoners. Professor Getty notes that those convicted of "counterrevolutionary crimes" made up between 12 and 33 percent (depending on the year) of the gulag population, with the rest having been convicted of ordinary crimes. He also rejects the common claim that non-Russian nationalities were disproportionately targeted. To quote from the paper called <em>Victims of the soviet penal system during the pre war years: an approach based on archival evidence</em>:
>The long-awaited archival evidence on repression in the period of the Great Purges shows that the levels of arrests, political prisoners, executions, and general camp populations tend to confirm the orders of magnitude indicated by those labeled as "revisionists" and mocked by those proposing high estimates... inferences that the terror fell particularly hard on non-Russian nationalities are not borne out by the camp population data from the 1930's. The frequent assertion that most of the camp prisoners were 'political' also seems not to be true.
For more, I suggest watching this video.
>most plausible
That's implausible
It's consistent because it's weak. It might be a good grounding for materialist analysis but would be woefully insufficient for any kind of dialectical analysis, as it excludes or limits objective analysis which is one half of hegelian dialectics.
And before one of you sweetys jumps in and says, "there's no such thing as objectivity," I'm referring to the way that an analytical method treats the O/other, I'm not referring to some reactionary ideal like objective morality or even (ugh) objectivism, k?
In order to do metaphysics that is compatible with Marxism you have to start by trying to understand Hegel. You can branch out from there.
Librivox has this which is a damn good start
I have to revisit this comment, because the book I'm reading makes heavy use of the petite-bourgeoisie class term. To call it outdated seems odd because this is a recent book.
We abandoned hunting with spears, cooking on an open flame, and if we ever find a way to make a hoverboard or a teleporter we will abandon the wheel as well.
> As long as a society has any form of scarcity, you need a way to determine who gets what.
Scarcity by whose standard ? , from the perspective of a middle-age peasant, quite a lot of people in the first world live in post scarcity. The only reason why people still crave more is because they got roped into by schemes like consumerism ( quite often as escape from the dread caused by capitalism), or gamemification where the economy becomes a game, where you have winners and loosers check out cookieclicker if you want to experience the madness.
> Even if you have everyone set up with free basic necessities like food, water, heating and shelter, money seems like a great idea to be able to ration "non-essential" goods.
That's the idea of marginal-capitalism for nonessential toys and luxuries, and if you can formulate this as practicable example where it get's limited to that arena and can't spill out. It has to be like a computer game, you can play it, but it cannot have any consequences for others, the rest of the world has to be able to make decisions based on reason. (money cannot be the driving force in people's lives) For that you need to have an antidote for the addictive behaviour reinforcement effect, that means if you can have an information-pattern that induces the hunt for points, you got to have one that neutralizes it.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a concept that all Marxists agree to, not exclusively the Marxist-Leninist trend of Marxists. The Marxist-Leninist trend was built up through Joseph Stalin and it was he who coined the term and popularized it through "The History of the Communist party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). Lenin never used the term.
Me personally, I don't use the term. I've studied Lenin and agree with most of what I've read, but the trend itself carries a lot of baggage from the Stalinist era that I think would be best left behind for Marxists. We can talk about that more if you want, but I think it kind of speaks for itself.
In another thread, someone asked about withering away, you can find my response pretty easily since it was fairly recent. I posted it today 6/23/2019.
Regarding centralized control of one party and the fruition of a hierarchy/bureaucracy--there is always going to be some level of bureaucracy when building a mass organization.
The question really involves how to prevent opportunism and the consolidation of power. This can only be done with an immune system. There has to be democratic freedoms: the freedom of speech and organization. People have to know what's going on, and they have to be able to organize. They also need to have the right to know--people in power must be held accountable for their actions and policy. When Stalin rose to power, these freedoms were suspended due to the Civil War under "war communism" which was essentially revolutionary martial law.
Before that, the Bolshevik Party was more tolerant of criticism and dissenting factions that were not in open rebellion.
> What happens when any of the workers or groups of the workers decide to pursue their own interests at the expense of other groups?
People with solidarity aren't that selfish. People with solidarity have similar standards, morals.
>Aren't the inherent attributes of people problematic to this vision?
What makes you think such a thing is inherent? See, this is where the capitalists control you. They say "You're OK, everyone else is out to get you" With no basis.
Interesting book on this subject, debunking dogma: "Humankind"
"Closeknit" is a relative term. all humans are "closeknit".
> How does the group maintain a balance whereby the entirety is willing to go along under the prescribed rules and decisions?
Respect, openness, transparency. Consensus decision making.
>the tribunal
No tribunal, no hierarchical structure. Everyone involved participates, gets heard, gets taken into account.
> It seems that any group of people eventually ends up with a system of laws and that inevitably will result in some kind of classes.
Why? Because your oppressors tell you so?
>Also, humans naturally divide and once work is to be done, they may divide under any number of classes relating to jobs, personalities, ambitions, etc.
When speaking of class we are referring to economic classes, power classes. The rest is immaterial.
Cien Horas con Fidel / One hundred hours with Fidel
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307376532/102-5175570-2350561?v=glance&n=283155
Or you could check Ocean sur website !!
>Please provide sources for 3 examples of US policies that we're influenced by USSR infiltrated communists.
This book has a lot.
Naked Communist Exposing Communism Restoring
- Helped Castro Come to Power anti batista propaganda and pro castro propaganda.
- Helped Mao Come to power
- Diverted Supplies in the Korean war
Whitaker Chambers and Dr. Bella Dodds books may have a lot also.
>Who do you think controls the state?
In my country? A bunch of guys calling themselves communists, one of the ministers even has a book called "Why I am communist". lol
https://www.amazon.com/Por-comunista-Alberto-Garz%C3%B3n-Espinosa/dp/8499426387
If there is a title on the website that is not available as an epub to download, use Ctrl+p to print it to a PDF. If you want to have it in other formats, you can use Calibre to convert it too.
Within the social grouping, I agree that from what we know, things were very egalitarian - tribal "big men" ruled primarily through consent.
Between social groupings though - modern hunter gatherer societies have large amounts of violence directed at other tribes. The tribes that enter the historical record are more than willing to deal out enormous amounts of violence to outsiders (the Dorians during the conquest of Greece for example).
Are you familiar with The Oriental Despotism theory?
There was a post by getfiscal (Maoist comedian Twitter type -- but very smart) on the shift to neoliberalism the other day that I thought was interesting:
>I just think that any time a condition seems dominant and certain that it is very easy for underlying factors to frustrate that by the creation of a new coalition that subverts everything. I mean politics is all about surprises and people making mistakes or clever countermoves. For decades everyone "smart" around the world was convinced that economic planning was pretty much inevitable and the question was what form or terms it would take. If the neoliberal period is a reversal of that then I doubt it is a permanent reversal because I think the pressures for ecological and social planning are becoming increasingly enormous and the benefits of not doing so are concentrated in fewer hands. Anyway the point of socialists is not to just try to these short-term struggles but to change the entire worldview.
You might also be interested in the book "The People's Republic of Walmart" which is coming out from Verso, a socialist publisher. The argument is that most of the Western, developed economies are centrally-planned at present, although by multi-nationals that use planning for profit-making purposes. I haven't read the book yet (it comes out next month) but I've seen some writing on this subject which is about how multi-nationals today basically rely on predictable orders to the same customers week-in, week-out; and the amount of data they have on customers now is so enormous they can predict what we want before we even buy it on large scales.
When? Nearly all the time.
"Why would Grexit benefit the Greek economy, at least in theory? If Greece had its own currency, the exchange rate could go down and make its exports more competitive and imports into Greece less competitive. Locked into the Euro, however, Greece can restore external balance only by cutting its wages relative to Germany and other surplus countries. That has been happening slowly and painfully through soaring unemployment (about 25% overall and about 50% for young people). As a route to restore competitiveness, it is far preferable to devalue the currency than to lower relative wages through unemployment. If Greece left the euro it would no doubt have a currency set at a more competitive level relative to the euro."
Edit: this is also useful http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5643/economics/would-devaluation-help-greece/
Another great counter argument. Just pointing out fallacies despite there being numerous examples in which one seemingly insignificant step led to an avalanche of problems. In the case we are arguing one should be wary of the slippery slope even if its a remote possibility. The potential repercussions could be disastrous or non existent but it is still a possibility.
I am sorry you are misinformed. Try https://www.wikipedia.org/
Emma Goldman was deported from the USA for revolutionary activities to USSR. She soon became disillusioned with what she was seeing (things were better back in the USA than in the new workers paradise).
As a well known radical she was granted the opportunity to meet Lenin in Moscow. When she enquired about freedom of speech in the USSR he told her, during the revolution freedom of Speech is a Bourgeoisie concern.
My Disillusionment In Russia
https://www.amazon.com/My-Disillusionment-Russia-Emma-Goldman/dp/1406739529
Later in her life it became her goal to return to the USA and be buried there as she then realized her error.
​
I can already hear people calling her a CIA asset. But the CIA did not yet exist ;).
This is an absolutely serious suggestion. Read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. It's free as an audiobook on Amazon and on Kindle/Ebook.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NAAL61L
It's the seminal text on capitalism, and it is also one of the most influential books on Karl Marx. It becomes so much easier to talk about capitalism vs. socialism when you understand the pretext. And what could be the harm? Smith had no "bias" and he believed wholeheartedly in capitalism. And if you read his reasoning you will think... ah, he is right! But it sets up the arguments from Marx and allows you to speak the same language, so to speak. You will see the contradictions, he may not. Hope this helps!
Khrushchev's secret speech had been debunked by Grover Furr. Khrushchev made all sorts of fallacious claims about Stalin. Khrushchev HATED Stalin because Stalin was dismantling the beauracracy which threatened the cushy jobs of white collar workers.
https://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Lied-Furr-Grover-2013-04-01/dp/B01FIXB0U2
Yes, if ~25,000 Crimean Tatar able-bodied adults directly collaborated with Nazis in SS & Schuma & Auxiliary Battalions, then that means it was more than a majority of the total population who were involved in supporting & maintaining that collaboration
Crimean Tatars actually gathered up thousands of locals & turned them over to the Nazis as prisoners of War. Crimean Tatars tortured Jews & communists
"After Hitler’s defeat and calculation of losses, it became known that 85.5 thousand newly made “slaves” of the Third Reich only from the (non-Tatar) civilian population of Crimea were actually stolen by Tatar collaborators to Germany. Almost 72 thousand were executed with the direct participation of the so-called “Noise”. Schuma is an auxiliary police force, and in fact - punitive Crimean Tatar battalions subordinate to the fascists. Of these 72 thousand, 15 thousand Communists were brutally tortured in the largest concentration camp in Crimea, the former collective farm "Red""
And furthermore
""February 1942 the eloquent testimony of the mobilization of German Marshal Erich von Manstein: “... the majority of the Tatars of the Crimea were very friendly towards us. We succeeded in forming armed companies to defend the Tatars whose mission was to protect their villages from the attacks hidden in the Yila rebels. On our side, they saw in us their liberators from the yoke of Bolshevism, especially because we respected their religious customs"
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories-Memoirs-Hitlers-Brilliant/dp/0760320543
Well I just bought this on Amazon Marx let's see how I get on with it in a few days
>these accounts are not reliable because they are characterized by myths and fabrications.
What makes them myths and fabrications exactly? Because they agree with your view point? You are citing Nikita Mendekovich as though he is somehow not biased towards the communists and the USSR's narrative. I'm am citing the book below by an expert in Afghanistan's history who supports neither communism or radical Islam. He clearly states that when the Communists came to power in Afghanistan, they did not have the support of the masses which forced them to start imprisoning dissenters in mass
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Taliban-Afghanistan-Mobilization-Future/dp/0312295847
Let me ask you this, why are your sources reliable while mine are "myths and fabrication"? Explain to me exactly what makes that distinction for you?
Which brings us to another emerging contradiction of Capitalism: aren't all digital goods just ideas stored on some computer much like how an idea is stored in a human brain? Thus, there is no such thing as an "equilibrium in the same sense within a marketplace of" digital goods also, correct? How are prices even being set on digital goods as we speak? There must be some monopolistic shizzzz going down one would think...
https://www.amazon.com/Postcapitalism-Guide-Future-Paul-Mason/dp/0374536732
I understand that, but there are some interesting cases.
Guaranteed access is fine, but what does it mean? How many bps, what latency, what reliability, and what priority? Furthermore, is guaranteed access equal access?
- Is all access equal in latency and bandwidth?
- Should we invest disproportionately large sums to bring high bandwidth to rural areas?
- Should we cripple city latencies to give rural areas equal footing?
- Should tech workers and professional gamers have access to faster, more reliable connections?
- Is all access equal in priority?
- Should recreational traffic be routed at the same priority as infrastructure?
- Should technicians have access to higher priority?
- Should party leaders with important jobs have higher priority?
- Should we run telephony and video at the same priority?
Finally, is guaranteed access restricted by content? Can I download "The Wealth of Nations", or watch Friedman's "Free to Choose" series on RedTube?
In other words, I know that the commercial aspects of net neutrality aren't applicable in a system without commerce. But net neutrality is also about the universal access to information and communication. What does that look like under communism?
Check out Debt: First 5000 Years. It's written by David Graeber, an anthropologist. It talks about the history of money and involves the history the pre-agricultural society.
I read this Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, also watched a documentary on it.
Russia in Revolution by SA Smith just came out and it's pretty good although not exactly left-wing. Rather refreshingly he doesn't shy away from pointing out that the non-Bolshevik parties brought their banning on themselves by boycotting the soviets and starting revolts.
Lars Lih's biography of Lenin is also pretty good.
> name one area I'm saying we should oppress
Your support of capitalism is support for oppression - especially your own.
> I've done my research...
You've swallowed your propagandist dogma.
>and the fact that youre refusing To do research totally doesn't surprise me
What do you need me to research? How you can be so obtuse?
> there's a reason people were trying to escape the soviet block to the west, and it's not just prosperity, but freedom.
I responded to this, but you chose to block it out because you can't think, just vomit dogma. Read back.
>You've called me a slave to production and consumption. Explain that, how the heck does that take away my freedoms
You are being forced to produce and consume at the behest of the capitalists, at their discretion, for one purpose, to maximize their profit - not yours.
You are manipulated to eat crap they misname food, that only addicts and sickens you. They have a habit of tricking you into buying crap you don't even want.
>I'm here to have a discussion to try and understand why the heck people would support communism despite completely and utterly failing wherever its tried.
You would have to acknowledge what we do support, not what your owners tell you what communism is. I have explained this yet you hold on to your lies.
> So wants have no place in com is that what you're saying?
No, what I am saying is esoteric wants have no place in the scarcity equation.
>How can you defend this do you not know how the body works?
Unlike you, I do. People eat because they perceive hunger. The crap they call food has no fiber so it leaves the stomach quickly leaving the person in desire of more. And so many empty calories come from sugar in liquid. Which does not satiate any hunger but is highly caloric.
And sugar is addictive. It lights up the brain just like cocaine. And the capitalists have deliberately manipulated the salt, sugar and fat in processed food for the explicit result of increasing consumption.
This is how the body works. It's not as simple as you want it to be.
>Of course addictions exist, they're not all caused by what's in the food. You know that right?
This manipulated food causes food addictions. Can you read? Read this book.
>Most of the work is done by the few, this is either because of money or because they're just crazy.
Capitalism has killed your innate desire to be productive. Different environment you can recapture that desire.
Stop being such a sycophant.
Here you go, have a read and then try to justify authoritarian rule.
> I don't like or support their pov either, but they vote and that has a real effect on my life.
I thought the POV in question were the socialists...
But, yes, we have been deliberately segregated. I still think those we need to reach right now are the masses, not the fringe.
The problem that put Trump in office, and the far and middle right congresspeople, is a combination of deals. Sure, he has his supporters, but it is the deals he made with the church that put him over the top.
Read this. It's very instructive of how we got here.
Why don't you actually do the research?
Most of the credited studies are secular and focus on issues of addiction and neurology and how it causes depression, anxiety, etc etc.
Here's a place to start.
The only grain exported was to meet foreign contracts for fear they would seize Soviet assets instead, but they still only shipped a portion of what they were obligated to.
3 million people died--from famine, which affected more areas than the Ukraine, and had been a common occurrence for centuries. Mark Tauger is an agricultural historian, not an ideologue, and he found no evidence of deliberate starvation.
There is plenty of evidence that the kulaks destroyed grain and livestock because they couldn't make a profit while people were starving.
The original claim of deliberate famine came from Ukrainian fascists, and picked up by William Randolph Hearst. It was revived by CIA asset Robert Conquest. It's a disinformation campaign.
Collectivization was overall popular. Most agricultural workers didnt own property, anyway. Their production methods were labor intensive and inefficient, and that stopped by the early 50s, when the famines stopped for good.
Agriculture in World History (Themes in World History) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415773873/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_cWe9ybTAX7E0B
R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 https://eh.net/book_reviews/the-years-of-hunger-soviet-agriculture-1931-1933/
Not one person developed it but you can read about it partially here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory
This book by Samir Amin is also particularly relevant: https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Unequal-Development-Samir-Amin/dp/0853454183
If America dies - the world wins. So simple.
>Tell me, if I were not an armed forces member what would change?
I don't know. Would you be a cop? We love hypotheticals.
>In reality nothing of course, I am not a very important person, but let's assume I were. Let's assume that by me not joining the US military, the US instantly becomes about as militarily powerful as Sweden.
That's a hell of a non sequitur...
>Who wins? Essentially fascist Russia,
Russia and China aren't imperialist countries in even remotely the same way the the US imposes its form of imperialism. The US is a hegemon, there are entire theories devoted to this - and there are non devoted to the idea of Russia, China, or any other country you can name - aside from the US. Why?
Here's a hint. https://s30.postimg.org/91mnxzz0h/wmb.png
Here's a book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Updated/dp/1783601779/
>Neither your ideology nor mine benefit.
Actually my ideology does benefit from the downfall of the prime predator nation. Communism is against predation.
I apologize that this forum is useless and basically consists of a few people posting the same thing in every thread no matter the topic. Whether you believe East Germany was 'state capitalist', a 'deformed workers state' or 'socialist' is irrelevant since no one has actually shown any knowledge of East German at all, they would post their judgement no matter the question and don't even bother to justify it.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware this is the only economic history of the GDR:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Plans-That-Failed-Economic/dp/178238314X
and it is fully bourgeois. Nevertheless, questions such as yours are a matter of facts and evidence, not trivial showboating from internet weirdos. If you want to know the real answer, read the book (or at least some of it). The shortcomings of neoclassical economic assumptions should be obvious while reading it while the empirical evidence within it is essential.
What do you think about this?
<em>How To Start a Revolution</em>, a documentary based on the book <em>From Dictatorship to Democracy</em>, by Gene Sharp.