AOC Is A Communist

[ThunderKiss1965]

Not all of my sources were Wikipedia. The fact that people have to support what they post on Wikipedia with evidence, be it in the form of scholarship, studies, or documentation, generally makes it a good source of information. Everything that was in that post can be verified by many different sources. Are you denying the fact, for example, that the Soviets already had a nuclear research plant before the EBR-1 that you mentioned? You claim I'm "historically retarded", when it's clearly you who has his head up his ass, not me.

Why did the US, along with over ten countries, invade Soviet Russia in 1918? Did they beat the Bolsheviks? No. Russia was an under-industrialized agrarian society full of illiterate peasants. Twenty years later, despite of all of the obstacles and challenges, it was an industrial juggernaut and rival of the capitalist powers that invaded it. Countries that had a long head start of industrialization, and yet were baffled, mesmerized by how Russia through socialism, had become a world power in less than 20 years. What took the US and other Western capitalist-run countries over 100 years to develop, a socialist Russia did it in 20 years.

Four million Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Seven out of ten Nazis were fighting on the Eastern Front. Operation Barbarossa resulted in millions of dead Germans and 27 million dead Soviets. Much of the infrastructure in Western Russia was devastated by the war. If it wasn't for the Soviet Union's great sacrifice, we would all now be speaking German and saluting a flag with a Swastika. The United States lost 460,000 Americans in WW2 and the Soviets lost tens of millions of its citizens. There was no "marshal plan" for Russia after the war, despite of its great contribution to the Allied victory.

The Soviets, the socialists, had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps after the second world war and rebuild a country left in ruins. Notwithstanding, despite all of this, the Soviet Union by the late 1950s, was a world superpower rivaling the United States and all of Western capitalism. A socialist nation, that for all intents and purposes, was in a state of war since its founding in 1917. Capitalist powers doing everything possible to destroy it. To pretend that the USSR was a complete failure and didn't accomplish anything is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, of reality. It's a disingenuous, desperate, silly claim.

Did capitalism defeat and replace chattel slavery and feudalism in one single swoop of the sword? Did it take just a few decades for the mercantile class, the merchants of Europe to replace the kings and nobles? How long did it take for capitalists to defeat the monarchies and replace them with capitalist-ruled republics? It took centuries. When material conditions permitted the merchants to become industrialists, during the industrial revolution, that's when capitalism replaced chattel slavery and feudalism. When the appropriate technology was available, that gave birth to capitalism. Likewise, when the required technology becomes available, that's when socialism will replace capitalism.

It didn't take the Soviets long to accomplish things because the Communist could literally work people to death and if they didn't get shit done on schedule they were murdered. Nothing like a good old purge to meet those goals.

As far as conquering Russia they have a long history of throwing bodies at their enemies. The Tzars and later the Communist didn't give a shit how many of their citizens died as long as they kept power. There is also the shitty weather an enemy had to contend with.

If the Nazi's hadn't been fighting on two fronts and the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor the Soviet Union would have been hammed between the two axis powers. Hitler making military decisions on the Eastern front was also a boon to the USSR. Oh yeah the supplies from the capitalistic US to the Communist was also a deciding factor.

You should also know that Churchill wanted Russia taken down after WWII. If he could have convinced the US the Soviet Union would have been toast.

 

[Red Front]

It didn't take the Soviets long to accomplish things because the Communist could literally work people to death and if they didn't get shit done on schedule they were murdered. Nothing like a good old purge to meet those goals.

As far as conquering Russia they have a long history of throwing bodies at their enemies. The Tzars and later the Communist didn't give a shit how many of their citizens died as long as they kept power. There is also the shitty weather an enemy had to contend with.

If the Nazi's hadn't been fighting on two fronts and the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor the Soviet Union would have been hammed between the two axis powers. Hitler making military decisions on the Eastern front was also a boon to the USSR. Oh yeah the supplies from the capitalistic US to the Communist was also a deciding factor.

You should also know that Churchill wanted Russia taken down after WWII. If he could have convinced the US the Soviet Union would have been toast.

You're just regurgitating a bunch of capitalist, cold-war rhetoric. Ask your CIA buddies:

​

Much of the capitalist drivel you just scribbled is debunked here:

​

It's RICH for you to assert that the Soviet's contribution to the victory of the Allies was mostly due to the Lend-Lease-Act, when seven out of ten Germans were fighting in Russia and suffered literally millions of casualties. The United States lost less than half a million, thanks to the fact that it is between two vast oceans, separated from the enemy by thousands of miles. The Soviets lost nine million soldiers and eighteen million civilians, due to the Nazi invasion (i.e. Operation Barbarossa).

If the United States and Britain could've defeated the Soviets in a hot war, they would've, but they couldn't hence they didn't (they tried in 1918 - 1920 and failed). The USSR collapsed due to the naive sentiment among its leadership that if they placated the United States and its allies by enacting some reforms, they could end the cold war. That didn't work.

You can pretend that all of this advanced automation and artificial intelligence isn't going to result in a socialist economy if it makes you feel better, but you're wrong. Socialism is the natural, inevitable result of advanced automation technology.

 

[francoHFW]

Yay you got most of that shit from Wikipedia you know the site that can be edited by anyone. You keep on spreading that propaganda.

Socialism and or Communism will never work without murdering millions of people. The overwhelming majority of people like to be compensated for their work attaboys from your Government masters just don't cut it for sane people.

I work hard to have nicer things than my neighbors in your non-profit world there is no reason for nice things everybody but the ones at the top will all have the same crappy shit.

For the billionth time, socialism is democratic and communism is a dictatorship and you are always talking about communism. Like all English speakers basically. The power of English Savage capitalist propaganda since World War one and the beginning of the USSR....

Not all of my sources were Wikipedia. The fact that people have to support what they post on Wikipedia with evidence, be it in the form of scholarship, studies, or documentation, generally makes it a good source of information. Everything that was in that post can be verified by many different sources. Are you denying the fact, for example, that the Soviets already had a nuclear research plant before the EBR-1 that you mentioned? You claim I'm "historically retarded", when it's clearly you who has his head up his ass, not me.

Why did the US, along with over ten countries, invade Soviet Russia in 1918? Did they beat the Bolsheviks? No. Russia was an under-industrialized agrarian society full of illiterate peasants. Twenty years later, despite of all of the obstacles and challenges, it was an industrial juggernaut and rival of the capitalist powers that invaded it. Countries that had a long head start of industrialization, and yet were baffled, mesmerized by how Russia through socialism, had become a world power in less than 20 years. What took the US and other Western capitalist-run countries over 100 years to develop, a socialist Russia did it in 20 years.

Four million Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Seven out of ten Nazis were fighting on the Eastern Front. Operation Barbarossa resulted in millions of dead Germans and 27 million dead Soviets. Much of the infrastructure in Western Russia was devastated by the war. If it wasn't for the Soviet Union's great sacrifice, we would all now be speaking German and saluting a flag with a Swastika. The United States lost 460,000 Americans in WW2 and the Soviets lost tens of millions of its citizens. There was no "marshal plan" for Russia after the war, despite of its great contribution to the Allied victory.

The Soviets, the socialists, had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps after the second world war and rebuild a country left in ruins. Notwithstanding, despite all of this, the Soviet Union by the late 1950s, was a world superpower rivaling the United States and all of Western capitalism. A socialist nation, that for all intents and purposes, was in a state of war since its founding in 1917. Capitalist powers doing everything possible to destroy it. To pretend that the USSR was a complete failure and didn't accomplish anything is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, of reality. It's a disingenuous, desperate, silly claim.

Did capitalism defeat and replace chattel slavery and feudalism in one single swoop of the sword? Did it take just a few decades for the mercantile class, the merchants of Europe to replace the kings and nobles? How long did it take for capitalists to defeat the monarchies and replace them with capitalist-ruled republics? It took centuries. When material conditions permitted the merchants to become industrialists, during the industrial revolution, that's when capitalism replaced chattel slavery and feudalism. When the appropriate technology was available, that gave birth to capitalism. Likewise, when the required technology becomes available, that's when socialism will replace capitalism.

Damn it, USSR was communist not socialist which means Democratic. You are confusing the roobs again. Marx was wrong about where the Communist Revolution would happen, he thought it would be in a highly industrial place like England or Germany. Socialism got there first. The USSR was amazing, often wonder how they would have done if they didn't feel they had to spend so much money on defense. Stalin, if he was really in favor of taking over the world, that was a mistake. Dictatorships never work in the end, too much room for corruption and neediness...

 

[francoHFW]

It didn't take the Soviets long to accomplish things because the Communist could literally work people to death and if they didn't get shit done on schedule they were murdered. Nothing like a good old purge to meet those goals.

As far as conquering Russia they have a long history of throwing bodies at their enemies. The Tzars and later the Communist didn't give a shit how many of their citizens died as long as they kept power. There is also the shitty weather an enemy had to contend with.

If the Nazi's hadn't been fighting on two fronts and the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor the Soviet Union would have been hammed between the two axis powers. Hitler making military decisions on the Eastern front was also a boon to the USSR. Oh yeah the supplies from the capitalistic US to the Communist was also a deciding factor.

You should also know that Churchill wanted Russia taken down after WWII. If he could have convinced the US the Soviet Union would have been toast.

Churchill was the greatest warrior of the 20th century but he was a Savage Capitalist Swine out of touch, The Tories were all over conflating socialism and communism... After the war, the UK was ready for socialism and they got it, although they had to call it labour.

 

[Red Front]

For the billionth time, socialism is democratic and communism is a dictatorship and you are always talking about communism. Like all English speakers basically. The power of English Savage capitalist propaganda since World War one and the beginning of the USSR....

Damn it, USSR was communist not socialist which means Democratic. You are confusing the roobs again. Marx was wrong about where the Communist Revolution would happen, he thought it would be in a highly industrial place like England or Germany. Socialism got there first. The USSR was amazing, often wonder how they would have done if they didn't feel they had to spend so much money on defense. Stalin, if he was really in favor of taking over the world, that was a mistake. Dictatorships never work in the end, too much room for corruption and neediness...

The USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Where is the word "communism" there? Communism according to Marx, is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Was the USSR stateless? Obviously not. Did they have a currency? Money? Yes. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. As technology advances, society becomes more communistic and democratic. Your claim that communism isn't democratic is false.

You can't expect a socialist country that identifies itself as Marxist and is being threatened with war and economic sanctions, to remain completely democratic and to succeed economically. Socialist nations are like flowers growing in a field of weeds, that are trying to strangle them. The capitalists are the weeds and those flowers might grow thorns and become more militaristic, even authoritarian, under such hostile, austere conditions.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

For the billionth time, socialism is democratic and communism is a dictatorship and you are always talking about communism. Like all English speakers basically. The power of English Savage capitalist propaganda since World War one and the beginning of the USSR....

Damn it, USSR was communist not socialist which means Democratic. You are confusing the roobs again. Marx was wrong about where the Communist Revolution would happen, he thought it would be in a highly industrial place like England or Germany. Socialism got there first. The USSR was amazing, often wonder how they would have done if they didn't feel they had to spend so much money on defense. Stalin, if he was really in favor of taking over the world, that was a mistake. Dictatorships never work in the end, too much room for corruption and neediness...

They voted for socialism in Venezuela and look how that turned out. There is also Greece with it socialism run amok and they totally fucked their economy to the point of crippling austerity was the only answer. You are still ignoring the right turn Europe is taking right now.

Socialism is only popular to the morons in society because the successes of capitalism and a free market that allows it. After the socialist totally fuck everything up people turn away. It's a cycle of stupidity that Europe continuously repeats. The only way socalism works is if you murder everyone against it.

 

[Red Front]

They voted for socialism in Venezuela and look how that turned out. There is also Greece with it socialism run amok and they totally fucked their economy to the point of crippling austerity was the only answer. You are still ignoring the right turn Europe is taking right now.

Socialism is only popular to the morons in society because the successes of capitalism and a free market that allows it. After the socialist totally fuck everything up people turn away. It's a cycle of stupidity that Europe continuously repeats. The only way socalism works is if you murder everyone against it.

Keep spewing your cheap rhetoric. All of it is easily debunked. Venezuela placed all of its eggs into one basket, namely its oil, and suffered when oil prices plummeted in 2014. Add the brutal economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the United States, and the forfeiture of all of its assets abroad, including thousands of gas stations in both the US and Europe, and your silly capitalist argument crumbles. You don't have the ideological luxury of blaming socialism for the economic problems or failures of a socialist-run economy when that economy is being sabotaged by the United States and the European Union. That's like DUH, but of course, people like you are completely indifferent to the facts and rational thinking.

There are plenty of capitalist failed states, should we blame capitalism for that? I'm just following your line of reasoning. Those failed capitalist states, like Haiti, weren't even in the crosshairs of the United States and they still failed.

You should become a socialist now because it will be the economic system of the not-too-distant future.

 

[francoHFW]

They voted for socialism in Venezuela and look how that turned out. There is also Greece with it socialism run amok and they totally fucked their economy to the point of crippling austerity was the only answer. You are still ignoring the right turn Europe is taking right now.

Socialism is only popular to the morons in society because the successes of capitalism and a free market that allows it. After the socialist totally fuck everything up people turn away. It's a cycle of stupidity that Europe continuously repeats. The only way socalism works is if you murder everyone against it.

The lives of normal people in Venezuela were helped greatly. Literacy rates went from like 30% to 90% and they got health care... Republican led sanctions killed Venezuela along with the fearmongered misunderstanding of what socialism is. Another country almost destroyed by American stupidity. Leave these countries alone the Cold War is over for God's sake.

Greece screwed up their economy because they listened to GOP bankers and financiers and had a big real estate bubble. congratulations on the corrupt GOP wrecking the world economy again..... that's when you get right wingers, like Hitler and Japanese militarists in the 30s. The GOP is always a disaster. See also trump deregulation and bank failures in 2023....

 

[Dragonlady]

Don't say "we the people." Communists are not people.

Good thing there haven’t been any communist since 1989 isn’t it?

 

[Red Front]

Good thing there haven’t been any communist since 1989 isn’t it?

The reason that many socialists identify as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. According to Marx, communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

​

Only a very high-tech society can adopt what is called "high-communism". We need very advanced technology that makes production extremely efficient, easy, and automated. The consumer under high-communism has a high-level of control and ownership over the means of production, the creative and productive assets and technology, i.e. robots, artificial intelligence, land, facilities, equipment, vehicles, materials..etc. High communism is democratic according to Karl Marx and a system of production completely in the hands of the former working-class or what he called the "proletariat".

Without extremely advanced technology, there's scarcity, hence the need for a state and money (that's the socialist stage or phase that leads towards high communism). Socioeconomic classes can be eliminated with socialism, but the state and money still exist, due to the lack of the necessary technology and the former wealthy-elite class that is trying to sabotage socialism (or more accurately, trying to prevent high-communism, in order to preserve their power). So the phase of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the democracy of the people is required in order to create a high-communist society that can exist without a state. The state becomes superfluous when the consumer has control over the means of production thanks to technology or at least has a high level of control. The state withers away or becomes very small and basic.

Humanity began with primitive communism:

And will end with high-communism (high-tech communism).

​

Don't drink the capitalist Kool-Aid. Capitalism is now becoming superfluous and will wither away, as technology becomes more advanced, automating production with robots, artificial intelligence, autonomous machines, and vehicles. etc.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The reason that many socialists identify as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. According to Marx, communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

​

Only a very high-tech society can adopt what is called "high-communism". We need very advanced technology that makes production extremely efficient, easy, and automated. The consumer under high-communism has a high-level of control and ownership over the means of production, the creative and productive assets and technology, i.e. robots, artificial intelligence, land, facilities, equipment, vehicles, materials..etc. High communism is democratic according to Karl Marx and a system of production completely in the hands of the former working-class or what he called the "proletariat".

Without extremely advanced technology, there's scarcity, hence the need for a state and money (that's the socialist stage or phase that leads towards high communism). Socioeconomic classes can be eliminated with socialism, but the state and money still exist, due to the lack of the necessary technology and the former wealthy-elite class that is trying to sabotage socialism (or more accurately, trying to prevent high-communism, in order to preserve their power). So the phase of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the democracy of the people is required in order to create a high-communist society that can exist without a state. The state becomes superfluous when the consumer has control over the means of production thanks to technology or at least has a high level of control. The state withers away or becomes very small and basic.

Humanity began with primitive communism:

View attachment 787079


View attachment 787081

View attachment 787084​

And will end with high-communism (high-tech communism).

View attachment 787080

View attachment 787086

​

Don't drink the capitalist Kool-Aid. Capitalism is now becoming superfluous and will wither away, as technology becomes more advanced, automating production with robots, artificial intelligence, autonomous machines, and vehicles. etc.

Cool videos and picts and an interesting comment. But of course we are all living in the period between so-called “primitive communism” and a sci-fi utopia which may never be realized. I’m all for progress and science, but I’m not ready to follow idiot idealists who talk about imposing by force a “dictatorship of the proletariat” led by a non-existing “vanguard party” which utter dreamers and likely useless wanna-be bureaucrats conveniently expect somehow to create and lead.

In fact the very proletariat / working classes that Marx thought would be able to gain enough “class consciousness” to organize itself against capitalism … has failed time and again to do so. It is shrinking in size and social weight too, and shows no sign of becoming or wanting to become an internationalist force for socialism or “communism” in the future.

I certainly agree it might be “lovely” if humanity survives and gets to a stage of super abundance and technological prowess where all fundamentail human material needs (and even “wants”) are satisfied, and force is rarely needed. But such a world, if it ever exists, may also turn out to be a distopia. Sci-fi gives us many examples of what such “high tech future distopias” may look like.

Thoughtful social writers as diverse as the “democratic socialist” George Orwell (“1984”) and the earlier Aldous Huxley (“Brave New World”) imagined different future distopias quite as likely as anything Marx ever imagined.

 

[jc456]

Leonid Kupriyanovich

Soviet radio engineer and inventor Leonid Kupriyanovich got a patent in 1957 for a wireless phone device. The first portable cell phone weighed 6.6 lbs. The inventor managed to reduce its weight to 1.1 lbs one year later. In 1961, he presented a portable handset weighing only 0.15 lbs.

For fk sake.

History of mobile phones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

The reason that many socialists identify as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. According to Marx, communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

​

Only a very high-tech society can adopt what is called "high-communism". We need very advanced technology that makes production extremely efficient, easy, and automated. The consumer under high-communism has a high-level of control and ownership over the means of production, the creative and productive assets and technology, i.e. robots, artificial intelligence, land, facilities, equipment, vehicles, materials..etc. High communism is democratic according to Karl Marx and a system of production completely in the hands of the former working-class or what he called the "proletariat".

Without extremely advanced technology, there's scarcity, hence the need for a state and money (that's the socialist stage or phase that leads towards high communism). Socioeconomic classes can be eliminated with socialism, but the state and money still exist, due to the lack of the necessary technology and the former wealthy-elite class that is trying to sabotage socialism (or more accurately, trying to prevent high-communism, in order to preserve their power). So the phase of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the democracy of the people is required in order to create a high-communist society that can exist without a state. The state becomes superfluous when the consumer has control over the means of production thanks to technology or at least has a high level of control. The state withers away or becomes very small and basic.

Humanity began with primitive communism:

View attachment 787079


View attachment 787081

View attachment 787084​

And will end with high-communism (high-tech communism).

View attachment 787080

View attachment 787086

​

Don't drink the capitalist Kool-Aid. Capitalism is now becoming superfluous and will wither away, as technology becomes more advanced, automating production with robots, artificial intelligence, autonomous machines, and vehicles. etc.

dude, the nutters only listen to whatever a demfk tells them. They are programmed to receive, but not to think for themselves and actually do research.

 

[Red Front]

Cool videos and picts and an interesting comment. But of course we are all living in the period between so-called “primitive communism” and a sci-fi utopia which may never be realized. I’m all for progress and science, but I’m not ready to follow idiot idealists who talk about imposing by force a “dictatorship of the proletariat” led by a non-existing “vanguard party” which utter dreamers and likely useless wanna-be bureaucrats conveniently expect somehow to create and lead.

In fact the very proletariat / working classes that Marx thought would be able to gain enough “class consciousness” to organize itself against capitalism … has failed time and again to do so. It is shrinking in size and social weight too, and shows no sign of becoming or wanting to become an internationalist force for socialism or “communism” in the future.

I certainly agree it might be “lovely” if humanity survives and gets to a stage of super abundance and technological prowess where all fundamentail human material needs (and even “wants”) are satisfied, and force is rarely needed. But such a world, if it ever exists, may also turn out to be a distopia. Sci-fi gives us many examples of what such “high tech future distopias” may look like.

Thoughtful social writers as diverse as the “democratic socialist” George Orwell (“1984”) and the earlier Aldous Huxley (“Brave New World”) imagined different future distopias quite as likely as anything Marx ever imagined.

You're more likely to have that dystopia under capitalists than socialists. Do you believe the wealthy elite or rich capitalist employer class cares about the working class or your needs? They're now constantly talking about a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income, which is essentially capitalism on life-support. The world these powerful capitalists are creating is one where most people are unemployed and worthless, essentially reduced to serfs at best. Techno-feudalism/slavery.

​

The "you're just a utopian ideologue/idiot" argument was created by capitalists to dissuade people from imagining anything better than the system that created and ensures the wealth and power of the ruling elite. If technology permits extreme efficiency and automation in production, then there's no need for private for-profit enterprises or the employer-employee relationship. Production can become completely socialized and democratized. Capitalists hate the prospect of that happening so they shit on everything that is socialist and do everything to brainwash their employees (exploitees) to serve the interests of their employers (exploiters). The exploitative relationship between employers and their employees is unnecessary.

Your pessimistic, if not cynical anti-utopian argument is similar to the one used by monarchists against Republicans. Their claim is that human nature requires monarchy and an aristocracy or the peasants will destroy everything. God created kings and kingdoms (the divine right of kings) whereas democracy is "mob rule" and demonic. Capitalists and their brainwashed, working-class minions, resort to the same rhetoric. Capitalism reflects human nature, it's biblical, and it's the best human beings could ever hope for, there's no other way to organize production, hence we need capitalism FOREVER TILL THE END OF TIME.

Then of course we add the ideological gaslighting and demonization of socialists and socialism by capitalists, who disingenuously point to the failures of socialists, without pointing to anything positive or any accomplishments or successes of socialism. Everything is supposedly dark and bleak. These capitalist apologists ignore the fact that socialists who identify their economies as Marxist are constantly threatened by very powerful, well-established capitalist powers, with economic embargoes and war. They're encircled, invaded, and sanctioned, hence those socialist flowers trying to grow in a field of capitalist weeds, grow thorns, and sometimes may even become poisonous, in order to avoid being strangled to death.

Capitalist death toll arguments against socialists are the epidemy of hypocrisy or let's say the pot calling the kettle black. When one factors in all of the innocent deaths from capitalist colonialism and imperialism, not to speak of simply the profit motive that refuses to develop a cure for a disease because such a treatment or vaccine isn't "commercially viable", you're in the hundreds of millions of deaths, at the very least. Capitalists and their brainwashed, working-class apologists, don't have the moral high ground upon which to stand and point their crooked feculent fingers at communists. We're all standing on a mountain of rotting corpses, so let's not resort to such RICH arguments.

The capitalist mercantile class and Republicans, didn't defeat monarchism or replace chattel slavery and feudalism, overnight or even in one century. It wasn't one battle or swoop of the sword, it was a long, arduous, painful, bloody process, that led to the industrial age. The material, technological and social conditions had to be present for the mercantile classes, to become industrialists, replacing the previous ruling class. It took centuries and many defeats before the Republicans replaced the monarchists, so why continue emphasizing the failures of the working class, in their effort to establish a socialized, democratized, non-profit system of production?

This is my last paragraph. It should be noted that socialism is alive and well in many European countries and around the world. Socialist principles are being applied in many industrialized, modern countries, that although don't identify themselves as Marxist or even socialist, are in principle and practice socialist. Countries in a world where the United States, the capitalist empire exists, can't just come out of the closet without placing themselves in a very precarious position, in danger of getting on the American ruling elite's crosshairs. No nation wants that shit.

 

[francoHFW]

Not all of my sources were Wikipedia. The fact that people have to support what they post on Wikipedia with evidence, be it in the form of scholarship, studies, or documentation, generally makes it a good source of information. Everything that was in that post can be verified by many different sources. Are you denying the fact, for example, that the Soviets already had a nuclear research plant before the EBR-1 that you mentioned? You claim I'm "historically retarded", when it's clearly you who has his head up his ass, not me.

Why did the US, along with over ten countries, invade Soviet Russia in 1918? Did they beat the Bolsheviks? No. Russia was an under-industrialized agrarian society full of illiterate peasants. Twenty years later, despite of all of the obstacles and challenges, it was an industrial juggernaut and rival of the capitalist powers that invaded it. Countries that had a long head start of industrialization, and yet were baffled, mesmerized by how Russia through socialism, had become a world power in less than 20 years. What took the US and other Western capitalist-run countries over 100 years to develop, a socialist Russia did it in 20 years.

Four million Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Seven out of ten Nazis were fighting on the Eastern Front. Operation Barbarossa resulted in millions of dead Germans and 27 million dead Soviets. Much of the infrastructure in Western Russia was devastated by the war. If it wasn't for the Soviet Union's great sacrifice, we would all now be speaking German and saluting a flag with a Swastika. The United States lost 460,000 Americans in WW2 and the Soviets lost tens of millions of its citizens. There was no "marshal plan" for Russia after the war, despite of its great contribution to the Allied victory.

The Soviets, the socialists, had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps after the second world war and rebuild a country left in ruins. Notwithstanding, despite all of this, the Soviet Union by the late 1950s, was a world superpower rivaling the United States and all of Western capitalism. A socialist nation, that for all intents and purposes, was in a state of war since its founding in 1917. Capitalist powers doing everything possible to destroy it. To pretend that the USSR was a complete failure and didn't accomplish anything is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, of reality. It's a disingenuous, desperate, silly claim.

Did capitalism defeat and replace chattel slavery and feudalism in one single swoop of the sword? Did it take just a few decades for the mercantile class, the merchants of Europe to replace the kings and nobles? How long did it take for capitalists to defeat the monarchies and replace them with capitalist-ruled republics? It took centuries. When material conditions permitted the merchants to become industrialists, during the industrial revolution, that's when capitalism replaced chattel slavery and feudalism. When the appropriate technology was available, that gave birth to capitalism. Likewise, when the required technology becomes available, that's when socialism will replace capitalism.

or Socialists will make capitalism fair and with a good safety net- always democratic.. Dictatorships don't work In the long run at least, and stop confusing the rubes with socialism communism conflation. TYVM lol.

 

[francoHFW]

dude, the nutters only listen to whatever a demfk tells them. They are programmed to receive, but not to think for themselves and actually do research.

Too bad the GOP ignoramuses do all their research through right wing conspiracy nut job sites and Fox and listening to incredible liars like Trump....

 

[francoHFW]

The USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Where is the word "communism" there? Communism according to Marx, is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Was the USSR stateless? Obviously not. Did they have a currency? Money? Yes. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. As technology advances, society becomes more communistic and democratic. Your claim that communism isn't democratic is false.

You can't expect a socialist country that identifies itself as Marxist and is being threatened with war and economic sanctions, to remain completely democratic and to succeed economically. Socialist nations are like flowers growing in a field of weeds, that are trying to strangle them. The capitalists are the weeds and those flowers might grow thorns and become more militaristic, even authoritarian, under such hostile, austere conditions.

Every Socialist and Socialist Party ever has been for always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Stop confusing the rubes.... Norway had socialism in the 19th century with health care for all and was never anything like communist.... As long as you conflate the two terms, America will not even get health care passed for everybody. It is the greatest strategy of Savage English capitalists and their minions in the USA canada australia and New Zealand. They all have socialism already but they can't call it that because they've been brainwashed for 100 years. In English speaking countries, you say you're a socialist for healthcare living wage cheap college etcetera, and the brain washed all say ohh you're a stalinist eh? Don't listen to Nazi, communist or New BS GOP propaganda.... The biggest liars in the history of mankind....

 

[Red Front]

or Socialists will make capitalism fair and with a good safety net- always democratic.. Dictatorships don't work In the long run at least, and stop confusing the rubes with socialism communism conflation. TYVM lol.

You're confusing communism with the capitalist rhetoric against it. High-communism, is a stateless society or a community with a small state, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. The objective of socialism is communism. The problem is that you drank the capitalist Kool-Aid, all of that cold-war rhetoric. Are socialists perfect? No. Was the USSR led by saints or angels? No.

The USSR did become more authoritarian, due to being in a state of war with the capitalists, and in order to survive but it wasn't nearly as bad as capitalist polemicists claim. They exaggerate and even fabricate stories, demonizing socialist history, so don't drink their Kool-Aid. I admit, socialists have indeed committed crimes, but to pretend that capitalism hasn't and is more "compassionate" and civilized is ridiculous.

Democratic socialism is what will save humanity from becoming slaves to the capitalist ruling elite, as technology advances.

 

[francoHFW]

You're confusing communism with the capitalist rhetoric against it. High-communism, is a stateless society or a community with a small state, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. The objective of socialism is communism. The problem is that you drank the capitalist Kool-Aid, all of that cold-war rhetoric. Are socialists perfect? No. Was the USSR led by saints or angels? No.

The USSR did become more authoritarian, due to being in a state of war with the capitalists, and in order to survive but it wasn't nearly as bad as capitalist polemicists claim. They exaggerate and even fabricate stories, demonizing socialist history, so don't drink their Kool-Aid. I admit, socialists have indeed committed crimes, but to pretend that capitalism hasn't and is more "compassionate" and civilized is ridiculous.

Democratic socialism is what will save humanity from becoming slaves to the capitalist ruling elite, as technology advances.

There is quite a bit of theoretical and hypothetical stuff in there. I'm talking about what the politics of communism and socialism have been in reality. Every Socialist Party ever has been democratic and for fair capitalism with a good safety net. Communism is a dictatorship and that is the problem with it. Russia was such a mess and so unfair and feudal, that the people were ready to work for very little And their industrialization was incredible.

I also would like to know if they could have had Democratic Communism, that is where the state owns all business and industry, if they had not had so much pressure from capitalists, mainly your usual super capitalist English and minions.... England and it's English speaking minions including the USA, all have these amazing moats around their countries and a huge advantage in wars and economics... I also would have liked to have seen what France could do without perfidious albion and its channel. They say Poland is like England without the channel.... Also the origin of the English and Americans thinking themselves personally better than everyone else. And so they end up being the most obnoxious people in the world according to many others lol. Especially their brain washed functional moron imperialist capitalist racist right wingers.... again, functionally And politically...

 

[Red Front]

There is quite a bit of theoretical and hypothetical stuff in there. I'm talking about what the politics of communism and socialism have been in reality. Every Socialist Party ever has been democratic and for fair capitalism with a good safety net. Communism is a dictatorship and that is the problem with it. Russia was such a mess and so unfair and feudal, that the people were ready to work for very little And their industrialization was incredible.

I also would like to know if they could have had Democratic Communism, that is where the state owns all business and industry, if they had not had so much pressure from capitalists, mainly your usual super capitalist English and minions.... England and it's English speaking minions including the USA, all have these amazing moats around their countries and a huge advantage in wars and economics... I also would have liked to have seen what France could do without perfidious albion and its channel. They say Poland is like England without the channel.... Also the origin of the English and Americans thinking themselves personally better than everyone else. And so they end up being the most obnoxious people in the world according to many others lol. Especially their brain washed functional moron imperialist capitalist racist right wingers.... again, functionally And politically...

Socialism and its objective, communism, is democratic. The USSR was never communist, it was socialist. The reality is that the type of socialism that identifies as "democratic socialism" in Western Europe, has often been a tool of the capitalists, to keep socialism or the working class under their control. If the government is democratic, under the control of worker councils, then there's no reason why it can't centrally plan the economy in collaboration with worker-run factories and cooperatives. Eventually, advanced technology will force society to adopt socialist central planning. The democratic socialism that believes capitalism will last forever, is serving the interests of the capitalists at the expense of the working class and democracy.