this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1252 points (96.3% liked)
Anarchist Memes
1188 readers
1 users here now
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is only so much that revolutions could do though. Attacking police and authorities because they attacked you for having peaceful protest? That's reasonable, it is self-defence. But looting businesses and attacking properties? No. People love the French revolution and abolishing a corrupt regime, but not its subsequent Terror by the revolutionaries.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here to be honest. Nobody is talking about justifying random violence here.
Edit: after further, conversation. The person I replied turned out to be a communist of whatever type to be turning a blind eye to communist atrocities.
Edit2: The high level of sophistry, deliberate lying, the constant shifting of goal post and gaslighting indicates egomaniacal and psychopathic tendencies. Specimen nonetheless exhibit high level of intelligence, yet vapid statements, which reinforces hypothesis. The interlocutor also deliberately and selectively avoid questions being addressed and performs whataboutism to hide issues brought up. The person constantly creates non-sequitur points such as "So, if the person is trying to make the argument that communism is the reason atrocities happen, then the burden is on them to explain why they also happen under capitalism." Premise A is the position communism causing atrocities, which does not follow Premise B which is demanding to explain why atrocities happen under capitalism, in order to explain why Premise A happens. The circular logic is standard practice among trolls and bad faith arguers. Moreover, did the person just admit that he/she is okay with the killing under communism because capitalism does it too?
~~At least you're not one of those leftists.~~ The Marxist-Leninists always advocate for violent revolution simply because of slight inefficiencies. They blame everything as fault of capitalism. I remember at the height of the pandemic, there is the famous news of long line of cars queuing in the motorway in Texas for shopping. A guy (turned out to be a forum moderator) blamed it on capitalism. I pointed out it is straight up lie when it's clear that it is the fault of the pandemic messing up the supply chain. No one could have foreseen the pandemic and its effects. The guy proceeded to ban me for pointing out the obvious lie.
Leftist know that if violence is to be used, it must be targeted at specific people not random. As for the pandemic messing up the supply chains, the only reason international supply chains exist is because someone can make more money shipping pineapples to china to exploit the workers there and then ship them back to the US to sell for a 250% markup. If providing pineapples to people were the end goal a lot of supply chains would be much shorter and more robust.
Good point. But at the same time, reality dictates that only certain countries could export such and such because of climate and geography. You mentioned pineapples, they could only be produced in tropical countries because that's where they could only grow. Of course, that will have to undergo an expansive supply chain. Oil is also only in certain parts of the world. These things will have to travel across the world.
You're not wrong about worker exploitation. But unfortunately, many governments of third world countries actually negotiated for Western businesses to set up shop with them to provide jobs for their own population. They offer cheap services in exchange for high capital and return on investment. However, as these countries become richer, they are also increasing their demand for higher wages and better treatment. Foreign companies then would relocate to another country to continue the cycle, until they run out of countries for cheap labour. That's why companies would love AI and robots to develop more, so they don't have to pay for expensive humans.
No actual Marxist-Leninists say anything of the sort.
You'd be surprised.
No, I don't think I would. And if you learn a bit about Marxism-Leninism you'd see that either people you talked to didn't understand what they were talking bout, or you yourself didn't understand what they were telling you. ML theory is pretty clear on why revolutions happen, and how to conduct revolutions properly.
Well, it's not like people don't have different interpretations of things. There is a reason why there are so many violent far left. The Red Army faction, Indian and Filipino communists and Bolsheviks comes to mind, all of whom profess to be Marxist-Leninists.
Communists accept that violence is often a valid and necessary form of resistance. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way Bolsheviks used violence. However, what you said above is just pure nonsense rooted in your superficial understanding of the subject.
Tell that to practical realities lived under the Marxist-Leninist authorities.
The way I see it, ideology is like religion. More often than not, theory and practice do not align. It is especially the case with communism. And look, I will be blunt, you're committing "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You're right in theory, but again, the practical reality says otherwise. You claim there are no true communists or Marxist-Leninists who would advocate for wanton violence, but the reality is that there plenty of examples. The Bolsheviks arrested farmers who are apparently too rich. But it is an excuse for collectivisation of farms under state control. Marx also did not believe in the existence of state (he thought it should be a transitional entity towards collective ownership of production under classless structure). And yet, no state who profess to be communists, or its variation, ever relinquished power.
Having grown up in USSR, I think I understand the practical realities of Marxist-Leninist authority a hell of a lot better than you. I implore you to spend he time actually learn about the subject you're attempting to debate here because all you're doing is just making straw man arguments out of ignorance. You also evidently have no understanding of what Marx actually said.
Right, so you are a communist. I should not be surprised then.
Sounds like you are surprised when confronted with what somebody who actually lived in a communist country tells you about it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think you know more about communism than people who actually experienced it though. That's very American of you.
Very arrogant and presumptuous of you think I'm an American.
If you are what you claim you are, what can you say about gulags and the purges in the Soviet Union?
US has a higher prison population today than USSR did even under Stalin. So, if gulags are bad, then clearly what we see under capitalism is even worse. Meanwhile, not sure what specifically you need to be told about the purges. All revolutions are messy, and require purging the regressive elements.
What's really telling is that people like you always have to reach back to the days right after the revolution to find something to complain about ignoring all the decades of how USSR developed after. You've just memorized a handful of tropes and you regurgitate them thinking that you're making some intelligible points here.
The purges happened years after the Bolsheviks gained power. The gulags continued until the fall of the Soviet Union.
So, what would you say about hundreds and thousands of people arrested for simply making a joke, owning a farm, being captured soldiers who escaped from German captivity, making mistakes on a job, the music apparently isn't working class enough. What do you make of these accounts?
Gulags were abolished in 1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
Maybe if you spent more time educating yourself then you wouldn't keep making a clown of yourself in public.
Gulag, labour camps. They're still prison camps in different name as per the same article you cited: "The Gulag institution was closed by the MVD order No 020 of January 25, 1960 but forced labor colonies for political and criminal prisoners continued to exist. Political prisoners continued to be kept in one of the most famous camps Perm-36 until 1987 when it was closed."
You still haven't addressed the accounts of those imprisoned. What do you make of those who were arrested? Do you approve or disapprove of the arrests, before and after Stalin's rule?
What part of US has higher prison concentration per capita than USSR ever did are you still struggling with?
What's more, US prison system amounts to literal slave labour. So, if your argument is that communism is bad because USSR had gulags, then it's clear that capitalism is far worse in this regard. The fact that you still haven't addressed this further exposes what an utter clown you are.
Meanwhile, why don't you address the accounts of people imprisoned in US concentration camps on the border, or those of people held in torture camps like Guantanamo. What do you make of those who were arrested? Do you approve or disapprove of the arrests under capitalist rule?
Classic Russian whataboutism. It never gets old, does it? You don't answer a question with a question. You answer with an answer. A child would even know this. How many times will people tell you, most of the US prisoners are detained not for political reasons. The US isn't also representative of capitalist countries.
What do you make of China having second largest prison population then?
Again, do you approve or disapprove of those detained under communist regimes?
I love how you immediately start screeching whataboutism when faced with your double standards. The fact that you don't understand that you have to hold different systems to the same standard shows that you're an intellectually impoverished person.
Any problems seen under communism are also seen under capitalism, and they're often far worse. That's the context for comparing the systems, is one system creating more problems than the other. Even a child could comprehend that, but evidently you are unable to.
Who gives a shit for what reason US claims it detains all the people for. The fact that it detains by far the highest percentage out of any country is what actually matters. Also, if you think that systemic racism is a better reason to detain people that says a lot about you as a person.
I think that further exposes you either an idiot or a liar because China doesn't have the second largest prison population.
I think that's a loaded question asked in bad faith. I don't think every person detained under communism was detained for a good reason, just the same as I don't think that every person detained under capitalist regimes is detained for a good reason. However, what I do know for a fact is that capitalist regimes detain far more people than communist ones. That's the real elephant in the room that you keep dancing around because you're an intellectually dishonest individual.
Edit: reading at OP's response below, there is deliberate feigning of ignorance on China having second biggest prison population as well as mass arrest of civilians in Soviet Union. It is true that the West has flaws and has imprisoned questionable prisoners, like Assange, but the Soviet Union has made mass arrests on civilians and dissidents. We don't see any large scale in the West.
The interlocutor also threw so many links down below on the second comment as gish gallop tactic. No one could possibly write that much in less than one hour since I made my comment judging by the timestamp. This is a standard troll tactic. Many links actually either contradict what the interlocutor say because they only read the abstract and misrepresent the full study, or the research being presented has deliberate bias and/or misinformation. They also throw in too much information for individual counter arguments to be made. It is gish galloping. With all being said, it is very suspicious that this is not a coordinated effort. If not, could be someone with too much time on their hands.
Lastly, the interlocutor says Russians approve the Soviet Union (if that is the case, they would have supported the communist coup against Gorbachev in the 1990s to retain the Soviet Union). I will not bother reading the articles just thrown in (which I doubt the person even have properly read them), but knowing the Russian mindset, they just take in whatever leaders there are. Centuries of top-down leadership made them malleable to authority figures. People are not always predisposed to crave democracy. Many times, they want authoritarianism and the promise of stability and many were nostalgic of either fascist and communist regimes because of perceived stability, despite the iron-fisted rule. If communism is still popular in Russia, then the communist party should have been elected to power not Putin's party. Nonetheless, the fact that more people defect from communist countries than the other way says a lot about communism.
Edit2: The person made more comments At least he/she admit Russian communists are controlled opposition. But doesn't Marxism advocate for violent revolution. Why hasn't the Russians then try to overthrow the current government despite the corruption and if communism is popular as he/she claim? Wouldn't this show that communism isn't as popular?
It is curious to see someone moving the goalpost constantly. If one wishes to discuss per prison population, the interlocutor conveniently ignore that the Soviet Union has had more prisoner population per capita then because of political prisoners and arbitrary arrests. Then of course the person will not address those who were arrested for simply making jokes under communism. Either he/she hasn't spoken to someone arrested before, or maybe served as someone as a communist authority figure in the past? If the person is trying to be humanitarian figure, as it portrays to be, he/she would acknowledge this.
There is no double standard. We talked about communism and its derivative not living up to its standards. Communism pruports to fight against the abuses and yet turned around on its original goals. Capitalism, on the other hand, is not a dogma. It just evolved on its own. Practitioners of capitalism are not one monolith out to abuse workers intentionally. There are still capitalist countries that still have better worker rights than the US.
You brought up US prison population after I mentioned arrests under communist regimes. You doing that implies Americans are being arrested for political reason, which is rare if ever. As you have justified in your previous post: "All revolutions are messy, and require purging the regressive elements." So you admit that people in the Soviet Union were imprisoned for political reasons. Ergo, and correct me if I am wrong, you're insinuating that imprisonment in the Soviet Union is political, but it is still better than that of the US because of lower incarceration rate, even though many prisoners in the US are not political.
That being said, you just admitted that now you don't care why the US has higher prison population and handwaving as to why the Soviet Union incarcerated political prisoners. You compared arbitrary arrests in the Soviet Union to systemic racism of American prison system. Are you diminishing then the severity of arbitrary arrests without warrant and due process with the flawed racial bias of another? You do justify the atrocities and flaws of communism by hand waving it and basically stating that: "Any problems seen under communism are also seen under capitalism, and they're often far worse." Are you telling me, that any flaws in communism could be ignored since capitalism is doing it anyway? Are you admitting to what communist regimes have done? Isn't the point of Marxist teaching is to dismantle the system of capitalism and offer alternative to more humane system than capitalism?
As for China's prison population. You'd be disappointed to find out it is true. Search it on your Yandex search engine.
Oh, got a player do we? Want to play that game of answering a question with a non-answer? Do you happen to be a politician? I will give you extra points for even trying to gaslight me that I'm acting in bad faith even though you never initially answered my question, and instead gave all sorts of easy to point argument fallacies. A standard politician with egomania could answer with non-answer while gaslighting people. Anyone reading these comments will see through you.
You have answered my question indirectly anyway. As pointed above, by making ridiculous whataboutism with American prison system and pretending not to know that China has second biggest population, you indirectly admit that you do not care for those imprisoned under the Soviet communist SYSTEM. The problem with your standard whataboutism on prison population, is that US is not representative of capitalist countries. There are many capitalist countries with low prison population per capita. The Scandinavian countries comes to mind. The flaw in bog standard prison population talking point by communist since the 1960s is that they make attribution bias by pointing out the outlier in a trend, while ignoring the rest. They think pointing out US prison system is a gotcha to deride capitalism as a whole, but conveniently ignore other capitalist countries and also that of China, a supposedly communist country.
Lastly, trying to compare US prison population is red herring and a weak attempt at diminishing and distracting the severity of those who suffered under arbitrary arrest in the Soviet Union. Doing so is tacit approval. You accuse me of being inhumane when you compare apples and oranges to hide the suffering of those thousands who just made a joke, owned a farm, a returning prisoner of war, or a musician whose music is accused of not feeling Soviet enough. You are selectively scrutinising one injustice, but selectively ignore another if it doesn't fit your own desires. You are a communist not because you care, but because you personally benefit from a system where you think you could have power. Same as a libertarian who would advocate for having no government because he would benefit from an unregulated free market. You know what you're doing. An egomaniac always knows. Hitler and Stalin were also egomaniac.
Never seen such a good bad faith argument, I will give you that. All fallacies thrown into one. Th most egregious being moving the goal post. Accusing someone of which one is guilty of. A certain Nazi said that. Of course the other end of the horse shoe meets the other. I've debated many many likes of you to see through the bad faith arguments, especially your having cognitive dissonance right now and the holes showing. If you want to say more logical fallacies, just hit me up. I could do this all day.
I encourage you to spend the same amount of effort you put into your trolling here to educate yourself instead. Let's just look at what communism actually accomplishes. Maybe this could be start of the education you're so woefully in need of.
Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:
USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%:
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960:
USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996:
In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016:
GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism:
The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0735675784900482 (sci-hub for access)
USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-smallpox
The Social Consequences of Soviet Immunization Policies https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1997-812-03g-Hoch.pdf
Here are some academic studies on USSR that you can read instead of trolling here
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possilbe:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
Finally, we can look at what people who lived under communism feel now that they got a taste of capitalism have to say:
Adult mortality increased enormously in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet system collapsed 30 years ago. https://archive.ph/9Z12u
Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
Looks like you have done this before but I got questions: If the Russians love communism, why haven't they elected them back to power in Duma instead of Putin's party and letting themselves sit as the second biggest party? Why do you pretend that China has not got the second biggest prison population? How many political prisoners does the west have, aside from Assange, compared to the Soviet Union? How many Soviets were arrested for making jokes as opposed to Westerners? How many people left communist countries than leave capitalist ones?
If you're genuinely curious then you can read chapters 6 and 7 in this book on how Russia transitioned into capitalism https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf
Meanwhile, the current party is basically controlled opposition. Russia is now ruled by capitalists just the same way as western countries are.
Why do you still pretend that it does when I gave you two separate sources saying that it does not. Do you not understand the concept of per capita perhaps?
This is your idiotic argument, so why don't you tell me.
Show me Soviets who were arrested for making jokes.
Tiny percentage of people left communist countries, meanwhile people who'd love to leave capitalist countries don't have the means to.
You keep on digging there buddy, can't believe you do this clown act for free.
Marxism advocate violent revolution, and if Russians do indeed support communism. Why haven't the Russians overthrown Putin yet? If they have done so with the tsar, why haven't they done with Putin? Why haven't the Russians supported the coup against Gorbachev to retain the Soviet Union if they are indeed supportive? How would you address the Soviet Union having had the most prisoners per capita, while it took the United States decades longer to attain similar rate? If it is better in communist states, why are we not seeing people moving to communist countries en masse? Why have we seen more East Germans risked getting shot escaping the Berlin Wall, than West Germans crossing to the east? Why do you think we see more Cubans trek the sea perilously across the Caribbean to leave Cuba than people going to? What do you make of people arrested in the Soviet Union for arbitrary reason? If you are what you claim to be, have you actually heard what they say or do you deliberately ignore them? There should be plenty of Russians still alive to tell their experience being imprisoned for making jokes or simply having farms who you could talk to, no? Do their experience matter to you? If communism is better in Russia, why has it fallen?
No, Marxism does not advocate violent revolution. I've explained this to you earlier, but due to poor reading comprehension you're still repeating falsehoods here. What Marxism says is that the conditions that capitalism creates ultimately lead to revolutions.
Because conditions aren't right. Again, if you weren't an ignoramus, and actually read about history of revolutions, you'd understand when and why they happen. You can start by reading this book from Ray Dalio who is a very successful capitalist, so can't be accused of being a Marxist.
They did, and I linked you a book discussing this in detail in the comment you're replying to. You obviously didn't read the linked source because you are just a troll and aren't actually interested in answers to the questions you ask in bad faith.
To sum up, you don't actually care about answers to the questions you're asking. You are here to troll and that's just pathetic to be honest.
Muscovites stopped the communist hardliners from overthrowing Gorbachev and backed Yeltsin's support of Gorbachev. Wouldn't you say that this is essentially stating that the Russians do not support communism?
If the standard of living in Soviet Union is better than today and communism is better overall, shouldn't that push Russians to overthrow the current Putin government? Why did communism fall in your opinion?
How come you haven't addressed my questions about prisoners in the Soviet Union and of their experiences? How come you are giving me questions as answers, to my query as to why East Germans tend to risk their lives crossing to West Berlin and more Cubans are attempting to leave than Westerners risking their lives to come in to communist states?
I love how this turd edits his comment instead of responding. Also, evidently doesn't understand what per capita means. This is consistently the case with these anti communist types. They're equal parts ignorant and dishonest. All they know how to do is to regurgitate the script they memorized and are completely unable to engage in any meaningful discussion.
The only person making bad faith argument here is you buddy. Also, if you think that what you're doing here passes for debate I feel sorry for you.
What standards is communism not living up to, you never defined those. This is literally an example of a bad faith argument and goal post moving on your part.
You have shown no such thing here. What goals does communism turns on exactly? You're just stating random nonsense here as fact.
None of the capitalist countries are able to do what USSR or Cuba have done which is ensure that everyone has housing, education, healthcare, jobs, and a retirement. That's just a basic fact of the situation.
It implies no such thing, and if you had basic reading comprehension skills then you'd see that I've explicitly said that it doesn't matter why US claims to arrest people.
This is just a straw man you keep building that has nothing to do with anything I said. Nowhere did I say that USSR didn't imprison people for political reasons. Every country arrests people for political reasons, including western capitalist regimes you're so fond of. Assange is currently being tortured in UK for political reasons, and that's just one example. Again, the question is regarding the rate of incarceration, and here USSR did a lot better than vast majority of capitalist regimes.
The arrests in USSR weren't arbitrary that's just something you made up.
You have yet to demonstrate on what basis you claim the arrests in USSR were any more arbitrary than arrests in western countries are. What made these arrests arbitrary do elaborate.
Why would you lie about something that can be easily googled, you're an utter clown
Calling Russia "a communist country" 😂
I never said Russia today was a communist country. I grew up in USSR before it dissolved.
Even more hilarious!
The only thing that's hilarious here is watching western dimwits give their takes on communism. It's like watching a squirrel give a treatise on quantum mechanics.
Just because you may have read Marx doesn't mean you're a communist
just because you made a straw man doesn't mean you're clever
Those are maoists and also do you dislike them?
Maoism is derived from Marxist-Leninism.
Okay and marxism comes from classical economics
I don't know what you're having but I won't be having it. Classical economics is the original capitalism. Marx rejected and critiqued it.
@crackajack@reddthat.com is a troll and a liar completely misrepresenting what he is being told, which is that the same kinds of atrocities that happen under communism also happen under capitalism, and often on a far bigger scale. So, if the person is trying to make the argument that communism is the reason atrocities happen, then the burden is on them to explain why they also happen under capitalism.
It's almost as if bad things happen in every human society, and what we actually have to look at is what system does a better job mitigating these problems. Of course, this is an adult concept that a troll here isn't able to comprehend.