What Is American Socialism, Communism, and Marxism: Open Q&A

[Red Front]

He was a lazy piece of shit who lived by the generosity of the rich he railed against. He was a joker, a joke to be made fun of by those that knew better. Marx couldn’t even hold down a simple job. Yet somehow you think he could run an entire economy. He was a worthless piece of shit. And a moron who never accomplished anything of value. A leach on humanity in search of more useless people to join his lazy worthless cause.

I guess Jesus Christ and his apostles, who also lived on the contributions of others were what you just called Marx, right? Do you believe Jesus and His apostles were "crap"? Anyways, in response to your nasty, foul tirade, here is my response:

1. Intellectual Contributions: Marx was primarily a philosopher, economist, and historian. His work laid the foundation for much of the modern understanding of labor, capital, and economic systems. His magnum opus, "Das Kapital," is a seminal text in political economy and has influenced countless thinkers, economists, and political leaders. [Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Karl Marx]
2. Financial Struggles: Yes, Marx faced financial difficulties throughout his life, but this doesn't diminish his intellectual contributions. Many renowned thinkers and artists throughout history faced financial hardships. His financial struggles were, in part, due to his commitment to his work and his refusal to compromise his principles.
3. Support from Engels: Friedrich Engels, Marx's longtime collaborator and co-author of "The Communist Manifesto," did provide financial support to Marx. This wasn't a handout from a wealthy benefactor but assistance from a close friend and intellectual partner who believed in Marx's work. Engels himself was a critic of the capitalist system, despite benefiting from it. If a wealthy venture capitalist invests in your work, does that make you a "parasite"? Marx found an investor to invest in his work, and that investor actually invested more than just his money. He also contributed to the development of socialism, collaborating with Marx on several of his written works and projects. Engels was also an intellectual giant.
4. Work Ethic: Labeling Marx as "lazy" is a mischaracterization. Writing comprehensive texts like "Das Kapital" requires immense dedication, research, and intellectual rigor. Marx spent countless hours in the British Library, researching and formulating his theories.
5. Legacy: Regardless of one's opinion of Marx's ideas, it's undeniable that he has left an indelible mark on political and economic thought. His ideas have shaped numerous revolutions, governments, and economic systems throughout the 20th century.
6. Personal Attacks: Ad hominem attacks don't strengthen an argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Just because the fascists/socialists running the gubmint and banking rackets have engaged in bailing out malinvestment, does not, by any stretch, mean that they have to do it....There's an immense difference.

How do you expect to have any meaninful conversation on any of this, if you cannot be honest right off the top of the deck?

That's the thing about socialists: Everything they believe is a lie.

 

[Red Front]

My evidence is there’s never been a socialist country that doesn’t begin with millions of dead people.

Your assertion that every socialist country begins with "millions of dead people" is a really stupid argument.

1. Native Americans: The colonization of the Americas by European powers led to the deaths of millions of Native Americans.
2. African Slavery: The transatlantic slave trade, driven by capitalist demand for cheap labor, resulted in the death of millions of Africans during capture, transportation, and forced labor.
3. Opium Wars in China: The British Empire, in its pursuit of economic interests, forced opium onto the Chinese market, leading to widespread addiction. When China resisted, it resulted in the Opium Wars.This was a clear case of a capitalist empire prioritizing profit over human lives.
4. Colonial Exploitation in India: The British Empire systematically deindustrialized India, undermining its native industries to ensure it remained a captive market for British goods. Famines, exacerbated by colonial economic policies, led to the deaths of millions.
5. Wars for Economic Interests: The Vietnam War resulted in the death of an estimated 2 million Vietnamese civilians. Similarly, the Iraq War and subsequent American-imposed economic sanctions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's comment on 60 Minutes that the death of half a million children due to sanctions was "worth it" is a chilling testament to the human cost of geopolitical strategies.

​

The US started the war with Iraq, under false pretenses:

​

Leading to the displacement of millions of Iraqis into refugee camps in other countries, ruining their lives, not to speak of the countless innocent lives lost:

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000

About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion in 2003 and mid-2011, an academic study suggests.

www.bbc.com

​

None of you capitalist polemicists have a leg to stand on, much less any moral high ground.

http://kether.com/words/butler-smedley--war-is-a-racket-1.pdf

 

[Red Front]

I challenge all of the brainwashed capitalist defender drones. I have a can here for you called...

Come get your daily dose from your friendly neighborhood communist.​

 

[Hum Dinger]

Unfortunately, you're allowing your emotions to undermine your reasoning. Communism is the objective of socialism, hence there are socialists like myself, who identify as "communists", as a way of keeping the goal in view and reminding us of what is at the heart of our socialism. The desire for a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That is the raw definition of communism. If the USSR was a "police state" then it wasn't actually "communist". The term "communist police state" is an oxymoron, a misnomer.

USSR = UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? No. They were socialists, not yet communists. They might have used the term communist or communism in Russian, "kommunizm - коммунизм ", but they weren't actually, politically, economically, communist. They were on the path of socialism to communism. Many Soviet citizens proudly identified themselves as "kommunisty", for the aforementioned reason of simply identifying with the objective of their socialism. Communism.

In addressing the claim that communism has been a "complete failure" and that the USSR was predominantly a police state, it's essential to consider the broader historical and geopolitical context.

1. Historical Context: The portrayal of Soviet Russia in the West, particularly during the Cold War era, has been heavily influenced by capitalist propaganda. While it's undeniable that the USSR had its authoritarian tendencies, it's crucial to understand the reasons behind them.
   
   • Foreign Interventions: Immediately after its inception in 1917, Soviet Russia faced invasions from multiple countries, including the United States, Britain, and France. The newly formed Red Army had to defend the nation against both foreign invaders and internal adversaries like the Tzarist bourgeoisie. This state of constant warfare persisted into the 1920s, delaying the nation's economic development until the late 20s.
2. Centralization of Power: The centralization of power in the USSR was, to a significant extent, a response to these external threats. When a nation is under siege, it often resorts to more authoritarian measures to ensure its survival. This phenomenon isn't unique to socialist states.
   
   • U.S. during WWII: For instance, during World War II, the United States, a beacon of democracy, took measures that could be deemed authoritarian. The internment of Japanese Americans and the imposition of rationing and price controls are a testament to this.
3. Economic Achievements: Despite its tumultuous beginnings, the USSR made remarkable economic strides. By 1970, it had become a nuclear superpower with the world's second-highest GDP. This transformation from an agrarian society with a significantly illiterate population to an industrial juggernaut is noteworthy.
   
   • Stalin's Five-Year Economic Plans: While controversial, Stalin's economic policies played a pivotal role in industrializing the nation. The five-year plans, in particular, significantly improved the standard of living for many Soviet citizens.
4. Comparison with the U.S.: It's also worth noting that the USSR's industrial achievements were realized in a much shorter timeframe compared to the U.S., which had a head start of over a century in terms of industrialization.

The fact that the USSR was eventually dissolved by its own government, doesn't imply that it was a "complete failure", on the contrary, it was a very impressive effort by socialists who overcame insurmountable odds, establishing a socialist society at a national scale, the size of Russia for almost a century. Its eventual defeat doesn't imply socialism is a failure or that it won't provide solutions for us here in the United States to address our socioeconomic problems.



Firstly, it's important to clarify a common misconception: China was never a 'pure Communist state'. According to Marxist theory, communism is a stateless, classless society without the need for money. So, it's contradictory to label any state as 'communist'. What China and the USSR were striving for was socialism, a step towards the eventual goal of communism.

Now, addressing China's historical trajectory:

1. Famines: China did face famines during the Cultural Revolution, but it's essential to remember that famines were historically frequent in China. By the late 1960s, under socialist leadership, these famines were eradicated, marking a significant achievement.
2. Living Standards: Post the socialist revolution, there was a noticeable upliftment in the living conditions for the majority of Chinese citizens, a stark contrast to the challenges they faced under British colonialism, feudalism, and the dynastic systems.
3. Economic Reforms: China's economic pivot in the late 20th century wasn't an outright embrace of capitalism. It was more of a shift towards a mixed economy, where the state still held significant sway. This approach has been pivotal in China's meteoric economic rise in recent decades.

Now, let's contrast this with Russia post the dissolution of the USSR:

Russia, in the 1990s, underwent what's termed 'shock therapy', a rapid transition to free-market capitalism. This led to the wholesale privatization of its economy. The result? The nation's assets were essentially plundered by oligarchs, buying up resources at a fraction of their value. By the late 1990s, Russia was in economic and social turmoil. It was Putin's intervention, applying socialist principles, that stabilized the nation. Nationalizing key sectors, especially energy, played a pivotal role in this recovery.

Your claim that capitalism 'saved' China can be juxtaposed with the argument that socialism, in many ways, 'saved' Russia post the USSR's dissolution.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that many Western European nations, despite not labeling themselves as such due to geopolitical pressures, have effectively integrated socialist principles into their governance. Countries like Germany, Spain, and Portugal, led by socialist parties, have policies that heavily lean towards social welfare.

As far as your scary campfire stories about Mao the monster who supposedly massacred millions of people. There's plenty of information exposing this Western Cold War rhetoric against Mao and communism in general:

Watch this video for more info:

​

Wars, especially class warfare are bloody. A lot of people die. Civil wars kill millions of people. Britain lost 20% of its population in the English civil wars of the 1600s. Death toll arguments against communism, made by capitalist apologists are disingenuous at best. Capitalism has its own mountain of rotting, stinking corpses. You have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists. You're just as prone to violence, if not more so than we are. Look carefully in the mirror, you don't have a halo glowing over your head, and neither do we.

Death toll arguments don't work, especially when presented by the defenders of capitalism.


View attachment 812856​

Sorry that you put so much effort into your pretty much false history lesson. I guess that I didn't mention that my wife is Russian, she grew up in the Soviet Union, her parents lived under Stalin, Khrushchev & Brezhnev.

Though a lot of what you say is true, your "Disney Land" definition of Communism is laughable. "a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money" is a childish dream.

The roots of what the world knows is the reality of Communism lie in the Bolsheviks who formed BEFORE the 1917 revolutions. The entire basis for the Bolsheviks was a militant authoritarianism - the "Standing Committee" ruled. All other members were expected to be absolutely obedient. The Bolsheviks did not believe in a working class revolution or anything close to your definition of "Communism".

Once the Bolsheviks won the revolution, the Standing Committee became the Politburo - which continued to rule as a violent police State.

Your assessment that the Soviet Union became a world power due to Communism is also false. Stalin may have had some success in promoting industrialization, but the primary motivation was the Second World War. The USSR HAD to modernize or the Soviet people would have been exterminated.

During the cold war it was only competition with the west that motivated the USSR to continue modernizing. In fact almost EVERY technological advancement made by the USSR was based on stolen technological designs. The USSR could imitate the west but it never passed it in any way. The only true Soviet inventions are the AK-47, the Molotov cocktail & Vodka.

Even Peter the Great only modernized Russia by imitating the West.

Pro-Communists like yourself may profess some starry eyed vision of a Stateless Society, but history has proven time and again that the poor losers that believe that nonsense end up with nothing but a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[Invisibleflash]

With all the trillions of $$ the dems are wasting, they could have given us a socialized healthcare option in America. Or they could have pumped up Social Security which is in trouble.

When it comes to socialized healthcare, it has to be as a secondary option to work in the US of A. The rich don't want it. They can afford the best. The average person can't afford the expensive greed based American healthcare. So, they would go for socialized healthcare.

If the middle class needs a bursting appendix out, they are in luck. If they need a heart transplant, they will have to work 5 jobs and save up for 6 years and maybe they can pay the greed-based healthcare for it. That is how a socialized plan would work. It is not to replace the fee for service healthcare, it is just another option. But the greed-based healthcare would never go for it. They don't want to lose a dime.

So, America is F'd. And besides that, our politicians could never run such a system. They are all incompetent fools. The best they can do is fine you for not being able to afford unaffordable healthcare that is unusable anyway due to the astronomical deductions.

 

[Red Front]

Sorry that you put so much effort into your pretty much false history lesson. I guess that I didn't mention that my wife is Russian, she grew up in the Soviet Union, her parents lived under Stalin, Khrushchev & Brezhnev.

Though a lot of what you say is true, your "Disney Land" definition of Communism is laughable. "a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money" is a childish dream.

The roots of what the world knows is the reality of Communism lie in the Bolsheviks who formed BEFORE the 1917 revolutions. The entire basis for the Bolsheviks was a militant authoritarianism - the "Standing Committee" ruled. All other members were expected to be absolutely obedient. The Bolsheviks did not believe in a working class revolution or anything close to your definition of "Communism".

Once the Bolsheviks won the revolution, the Standing Committee became the Politburo - which continued to rule as a violent police State.

Your assessment that the Soviet Union became a world power due to Communism is also false. Stalin may have had some success in promoting industrialization, but the primary motivation was the Second World War. The USSR HAD to modernize or the Soviet people would have been exterminated.

During the cold war it was only competition with the west that motivated the USSR to continue modernizing. In fact almost EVERY technological advancement made by the USSR was based on stolen technological designs. The USSR could imitate the west but it never passed it in any way. The only true Soviet inventions are the AK-47, the Molotov cocktail & Vodka.

Even Peter the Great only modernized Russia by imitating the West.

Pro-Communists like yourself may profess some starry eyed vision of a Stateless Society, but history has proven time and again that the poor losers that believe that nonsense end up with nothing but a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.

Sorry that you put so much effort into your pretty much false history lesson. I guess that I didn't mention that my wife is Russian, she grew up in the Soviet Union, her parents lived under Stalin, Khrushchev & Brezhnev.

That doesn't prove anything that I said wrong. I presented historical facts and you appealing to your unfalsifiable supposed fact of having a Russian wife born in the USSR amounts to nothing. You need to improve your critical thinking skills.

What do you say about the following Russians who mostly have a positive opinion about the USSR?

​

Why are they wrong and your wife correct?

Though a lot of what you say is true, your "Disney Land" definition of Communism is laughable. "a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money" is a childish dream.

Why is it a "childish dream"? Because you don't like it? I've already expressed here on this thread, that I believe human society will always need a state. The state will become much smaller as technology advances, further empowering the consumer, by rendering production a personal activity, rather than a social endeavor, as it is today. As far as the elimination of socioeconomic classes and our need for money, that is clearly inevitable when technology replaces wage labor.

You can continue sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, but nonetheless, advanced automation and artificial intelligence, will inevitably eliminate wage labor, and when that occurs, there's no more market or a need for money. That's not "Disney Land", that's reality.

The roots of what the world knows is the reality of Communism lie in the Bolsheviks who formed BEFORE the 1917 revolutions. The entire basis for the Bolsheviks was a militant authoritarianism - the "Standing Committee" ruled. All other members were expected to be absolutely obedient. The Bolsheviks did not believe in a working class revolution or anything close to your definition of "Communism".

Once the Bolsheviks won the revolution, the Standing Committee became the Politburo - which continued to rule as a violent police State.

Your portrayal of the Bolsheviks and the early Soviet state is a gross simplification and baseless distortion.

1. Origins of the Bolsheviks: The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin, did indeed form before the 1917 revolutions as a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Their primary distinction was their belief in a vanguard party leading the proletariat to revolution. However, to claim they didn't believe in a working-class revolution is inaccurate. The very essence of their ideology was rooted in the idea of a proletariat-led revolution against the bourgeoisie or ruling elite.
2. Democratic Centralism: The Bolsheviks operated under the principle of democratic centralism, which meant decisions were reached democratically but, once decided, were binding on all members. While this did centralize authority, it was seen as a necessary measure to ensure unity and decisive action in a tumultuous period. [
3. The Politburo: The Politburo, or the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, did become one of the principal governing bodies. However, it's an oversimplification to equate the Politburo's existence with an oppressive "violent police State." Let's see your evidence.
4. Post-Revolution Challenges: After the revolution, the Bolsheviks faced immense challenges, including civil war, foreign interventions (they were fighting 200K foreign troops, which included the US, UK, and France, including the Rissoam Tzarist "white army"), and economic collapse. The measures they took, including centralization of power, were seen as necessary to preserve the revolution and rebuild the country. It's essential to view their actions in the context of the challenges they faced.

Your assessment that the Soviet Union became a world power due to Communism is also false. Stalin may have had some success in promoting industrialization, but the primary motivation was the Second World War. The USSR HAD to modernize or the Soviet people would have been exterminated.

Your assertion that the Soviet Union's rise to power was solely due to the pressures of the Second World War is complete rubbish.

1. Five-Year Plans: The USSR initiated a series of Five-Year Plans starting in 1928, aimed at rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. These plans resulted in a significant increase in the production of major industrial outputs. By the end of the 1930s, the Soviet Union had become one of the world's leading industrial nations. [Reference: Encyclopedia Britannica - Five-Year Plans]
2. Infrastructure Development: The 1930s saw massive infrastructure projects, including the construction of the Moscow Metro, which remains one of the most extensive and well-designed subway systems in the world. The Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, completed in 1932, was another monumental achievement, showcasing the USSR's commitment to modernizing its energy infrastructure.
3. Agricultural Collectivization: The collectivization of farms aimed to increase agricultural output and ensure food security for the rapidly growing urban population. This was a significant shift from the agrarian economy that had dominated Russia for centuries.
4. National Electrification: The GOELRO plan, initiated in the 1920s, was the USSR's first-ever state plan for national economic recovery and development. It aimed to electrify the entire country, and by the 1930s, a significant % of Russia was electrified.
5. Highways and Bridges: The 1930s also saw the construction of major highways, bridges, and transportation networks, further connecting and modernizing the vast Soviet territory.

To claim that the USSR's modernization was solely a reaction to the impending war is to ignore a decade of intensive development and progress.

During the cold war it was only competition with the west that motivated the USSR to continue modernizing. In fact almost EVERY technological advancement made by the USSR was based on stolen technological designs. The USSR could imitate the west but it never passed it in any way. The only true Soviet inventions are the AK-47, the Molotov cocktail & Vodka. Even Peter the Great only modernized Russia by imitating the West.

.You're spewing a bunch of capitalist trash.

Before delving into the USSR's achievements, it's worth noting that during early industrialization in the United States, we stole plenty of technology and knowledge from Europe. Hello?

1. U.S. Borrowing from Europe: Samuel Slater, known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution," memorized British textile machine designs and recreated them in the U.S., leading to the growth of the American textile industry. Similarly, Francis Cabot Lowell, after observing British textile factories, returned to the U.S. and developed an improved version of the power loom. The U.S. also adopted European steam technology, which played a crucial role in the development of steamboats and railroads. During its early industrialization, the U.S. had lax intellectual property laws, allowing for the free adaptation of European innovations. Only after its industries matured did the U.S. strengthen its intellectual property laws.

You can google "US steals technology industrialization" and you'll get more information.

Did the Soviets rely on the US for all of its technology? No, that's a ridiculous, groundless claim.

• 
  Soviet Space Achievements: The Soviet space program was pioneering. They launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, and sent the first human, Yuri Gagarin, to orbit the Earth.
• Nuclear and Energy: The USSR was at the forefront of nuclear technology, building the world's first nuclear power plant connected to an electric grid in 1954.
• Medical and Biological Research: Soviet scientists developed phages, viruses that can kill harmful bacteria, offering a potential alternative to antibiotics.
• Electronics and Optics: The Soviets were pioneers in several areas of electronics and optics:
  • LED Technology: They played a crucial role in the development of LED (Light Emitting Diode) technology.
  • Lasers: Soviet scientists were instrumental in the advancement of laser technology.
  • Mobile Communication: The USSR developed one of the first mobile phone-like devices, showcasing their advancements in communication technology.
• Marine Technology: The USSR made significant strides in submarine technology, being the first to construct submarines using titanium, which allowed for greater depths and operational capabilities.
• Computing: The USSR developed several early computers, with some designs predating Western counterparts.

To claim that the USSR's achievements were solely based on "stolen technological designs" is to overlook a rich history of innovation and progress. Both superpowers, during the Cold War era, pushed each other to innovate and achieve more, leading to advancements that have benefited humanity as a whole.

Pro-Communists like yourself may profess some starry eyed vision of a Stateless Society, but history has proven time and again that the poor losers that believe that nonsense end up with nothing but a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.

The so-called "brutal totalitarian dictatorship" is often just a figment of the imagination of losers like yourself, who can't come to terms with reality. Here are your CIA buddies admitting that they created many false stories about communists with the purpose of demonizing them:

CIA Officer Frank Snepp Discusses Planting Stories in Vietnam​

 

[kaz]

What a waste of a read. Thanks for nada. ^^

I'm wondering as a brain dead Democrat nut job why you were reading my posts when you knew I wasn't going to tell you what you already "know," that Democrats are right on every issue

 

[Hum Dinger]

My wife having grown up in the Soviet Union does give me a more accurate view of whet life was like. In fact she had a very happy life there. But she grew up in Brezhnev's time. There were definite advantages to life in the Soviet Union - for the majority of the people but only during Khrushchev's & Brezhnev's time. Life was a horror for most people during Stalin's reign. IT would have continued that way if Khrushchev had not arrested Beria.

The fact is that the implementation of Bolshevik "Socialism" is nothing but a fascist dictatorship that uses the propaganda of "Utopian Communism" to justify tyranny. Yes, Khrushchev & Brezhnev were fairly benevolent, but a benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

As for your nonsense about technology and artificial intelligence eliminating socioeconomic classes and market economics, I have to wonder if you really were born yesterday. You understand NOTHING about human behavior. Unfortunately the need for a socioeconomic hierarchy & competition is deeply ingrained in a huge majority of the human race. Around half of all humanity measure their own self worth based on their position in the "Tribal Hierarchy". What should we do? Execute all competitive people? (Very Stalinistic of you!). Should we imprison women that choose their mates based on economic status?

Learn something about people:

Hypergamy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not going to bother refuting your points since I'm working and don't have the time. Some seem feasible, others are ludicrious.

Your blabbing out pure Communist propaganda BULLSHIT. The type that even school children and even Communist party members would laugh at in the USSR.

 

[Red Front]

With all the trillions of $$ the dems are wasting, they could have given us a socialized healthcare option in America. Or they could have pumped up Social Security which is in trouble.

When it comes to socialized healthcare, it has to be as a secondary option to work in the US of A. The rich don't want it. They can afford the best. The average person can't afford the expensive greed based American healthcare. So, they would go for socialized healthcare.

If the middle class needs a bursting appendix out, they are in luck. If they need a heart transplant, they will have to work 5 jobs and save up for 6 years and maybe they can pay the greed-based healthcare for it. That is how a socialized plan would work. It is not to replace the fee for service healthcare, it is just another option. But the greed-based healthcare would never go for it. They don't want to lose a dime.

So, America is F'd. And besides that, our politicians could never run such a system. They are all incompetent fools. The best they can do is fine you for not being able to afford unaffordable healthcare that is unusable anyway due to the astronomical deductions.


View attachment 813167

With all the trillions of $$ the dems are wasting, they could have given us a socialized healthcare option in America. Or they could have pumped up Social Security which is in trouble.When it comes to socialized healthcare, it has to be as a secondary option to work in the US of A. The rich don't want it. They can afford the best. The average person can't afford the expensive greed based American healthcare. So, they would go for socialized healthcare.

Of course, because both parties are serving the same $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$....They don't serve us.

​

If the middle class needs a bursting appendix out, they are in luck. If they need a heart transplant, they will have to work 5 jobs and save up for 6 years and maybe they can pay the greed-based healthcare for it.

My stepfather, had to become dirt poor and collect social security disability in his mid-50s, in order to qualify for Medicaid when he had a life-threatening disease. He's a well-paid machinist, and even he couldn't afford the expensive deductibles and copayments, along with the expensive premiums. He was with United Healthcare at the time.

I'm also a CNC machinist and programmer, but unlike him, I'm unionized. I don't live in Florida, I live here in NY. I didn't have to become dirt poor and get on SSD to qualify for Medicaid, because I have good health coverage through my labor union-protected contract. When I needed open heart surgery, in my late 40s, to put in an artificial aortic valve and ascending aorta/Dacron graft, my private health insurance covered it all. That's the benefit of being in a good labor union. At least Dems are friendlier towards labor unions than the Repubs are.

That is how a socialized plan would work. It is not to replace the fee for service healthcare, it is just another option. But the greed-based healthcare would never go for it. They don't want to lose a dime.

So, America is F'd. And besides that, our politicians could never run such a system. They are all incompetent fools. The best they can do is fine you for not being able to afford unaffordable healthcare that is unusable anyway due to the astronomical deductions.

They all serve the same vested interests and don't give a crap about the public good. I believe Medicare should be expanded to everyone. I also believe in medical freedom. Let people avail themselves of their Medicare benefits, but if they want some alternative treatment or to pay for their medical out of pocket, the government shouldn't get in the way.

Also, eliminate the prescription racket. Give people the freedom, to get whatever medical treatment they want from whomever they want. I'm for educating the public about good medicine and what they have access to through their Medicare benefits, but I'm against getting in people's way when it comes to medical treatments. Let them decide for themselves.

 

[Hum Dinger]

That doesn't prove anything that I said wrong. I presented historical facts and you appealing to your unfalsifiable supposed fact of having a Russian wife born in the USSR amounts to nothing. You need to improve your critical thinking skills.

What do you say about the following Russians who mostly have a positive opinion about the USSR?

​

Why are they wrong and your wife correct?



Why is it a "childish dream"? Because you don't like it? I've already expressed here on this thread, that I believe human society will always need a state. The state will become much smaller as technology advances, further empowering the consumer, by rendering production a personal activity, rather than a social endeavor, as it is today. As far as the elimination of socioeconomic classes and our need for money, that is clearly inevitable when technology replaces wage labor.

You can continue sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich, but nonetheless, advanced automation and artificial intelligence, will inevitably eliminate wage labor, and when that occurs, there's no more market or a need for money. That's not "Disney Land", that's reality.




Your portrayal of the Bolsheviks and the early Soviet state is a gross simplification and baseless distortion.

1. Origins of the Bolsheviks: The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin, did indeed form before the 1917 revolutions as a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Their primary distinction was their belief in a vanguard party leading the proletariat to revolution. However, to claim they didn't believe in a working-class revolution is inaccurate. The very essence of their ideology was rooted in the idea of a proletariat-led revolution against the bourgeoisie or ruling elite.
2. Democratic Centralism: The Bolsheviks operated under the principle of democratic centralism, which meant decisions were reached democratically but, once decided, were binding on all members. While this did centralize authority, it was seen as a necessary measure to ensure unity and decisive action in a tumultuous period. [
3. The Politburo: The Politburo, or the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, did become one of the principal governing bodies. However, it's an oversimplification to equate the Politburo's existence with an oppressive "violent police State." Let's see your evidence.
4. Post-Revolution Challenges: After the revolution, the Bolsheviks faced immense challenges, including civil war, foreign interventions (they were fighting 200K foreign troops, which included the US, UK, and France, including the Rissoam Tzarist "white army"), and economic collapse. The measures they took, including centralization of power, were seen as necessary to preserve the revolution and rebuild the country. It's essential to view their actions in the context of the challenges they faced.

Your assertion that the Soviet Union's rise to power was solely due to the pressures of the Second World War is complete rubbish.

1. Five-Year Plans: The USSR initiated a series of Five-Year Plans starting in 1928, aimed at rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. These plans resulted in a significant increase in the production of major industrial outputs. By the end of the 1930s, the Soviet Union had become one of the world's leading industrial nations. [Reference: Encyclopedia Britannica - Five-Year Plans]
2. Infrastructure Development: The 1930s saw massive infrastructure projects, including the construction of the Moscow Metro, which remains one of the most extensive and well-designed subway systems in the world. The Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, completed in 1932, was another monumental achievement, showcasing the USSR's commitment to modernizing its energy infrastructure.
3. Agricultural Collectivization: The collectivization of farms aimed to increase agricultural output and ensure food security for the rapidly growing urban population. This was a significant shift from the agrarian economy that had dominated Russia for centuries.
4. National Electrification: The GOELRO plan, initiated in the 1920s, was the USSR's first-ever state plan for national economic recovery and development. It aimed to electrify the entire country, and by the 1930s, a significant % of Russia was electrified.
5. Highways and Bridges: The 1930s also saw the construction of major highways, bridges, and transportation networks, further connecting and modernizing the vast Soviet territory.

To claim that the USSR's modernization was solely a reaction to the impending war is to ignore a decade of intensive development and progress.



.You're spewing a bunch of capitalist trash.

Before delving into the USSR's achievements, it's worth noting that during early industrialization in the United States, we stole plenty of technology and knowledge from Europe. Hello?

1. U.S. Borrowing from Europe: Samuel Slater, known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution," memorized British textile machine designs and recreated them in the U.S., leading to the growth of the American textile industry. Similarly, Francis Cabot Lowell, after observing British textile factories, returned to the U.S. and developed an improved version of the power loom. The U.S. also adopted European steam technology, which played a crucial role in the development of steamboats and railroads. During its early industrialization, the U.S. had lax intellectual property laws, allowing for the free adaptation of European innovations. Only after its industries matured did the U.S. strengthen its intellectual property laws.

You can google "US steals technology industrialization" and you'll get more information.

Did the Soviets rely on the US for all of its technology? No, that's a ridiculous, groundless claim.

• 
  Soviet Space Achievements: The Soviet space program was pioneering. They launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, and sent the first human, Yuri Gagarin, to orbit the Earth.
• Nuclear and Energy: The USSR was at the forefront of nuclear technology, building the world's first nuclear power plant connected to an electric grid in 1954.
• Medical and Biological Research: Soviet scientists developed phages, viruses that can kill harmful bacteria, offering a potential alternative to antibiotics.
• Electronics and Optics: The Soviets were pioneers in several areas of electronics and optics:
  • LED Technology: They played a crucial role in the development of LED (Light Emitting Diode) technology.
  • Lasers: Soviet scientists were instrumental in the advancement of laser technology.
  • Mobile Communication: The USSR developed one of the first mobile phone-like devices, showcasing their advancements in communication technology.
• Marine Technology: The USSR made significant strides in submarine technology, being the first to construct submarines using titanium, which allowed for greater depths and operational capabilities.
• Computing: The USSR developed several early computers, with some designs predating Western counterparts.

To claim that the USSR's achievements were solely based on "stolen technological designs" is to overlook a rich history of innovation and progress. Both superpowers, during the Cold War era, pushed each other to innovate and achieve more, leading to advancements that have benefited humanity as a whole.




The so-called "brutal totalitarian dictatorship" is often just a figment of the imagination of losers like yourself, who can't come to terms with reality. Here are your CIA buddies admitting that they created many false stories about communists with the purpose of demonizing them:

CIA Officer Frank Snepp Discusses Planting Stories in Vietnam​

One more thing:

Many Americans know that since the end of WWII, American Conservatives - who have 50% or more control of our Government - have used the United States as the strong arm of European Conservatives (colonialists).They have mostly successfully brainwashed millions of Americans into believing that the U.S. was capitalist above all else. That's why I've said that Americans need to return to American values and stop being lead by the false notion of European Capitalism. That has been leading us to Neo-Monarchy.

If you had it your way, these same Neo-Monarchists would take tyrannical control of the U.S. while professing to be leading us to a utopian communist state.

There was no substantial difference between Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev. They were all tyrants.

The fact is that Democracy is complicated - too complicated for you. People like you need to have one 'Alpha Male' who is your great leader and who you will follow to the death.

Note: Anyone that believes that the American Republican and Democratic parties are the same is either an idiot or has been sound asleep his whole life.

Nice try, but sell your Communist propaganda BULLSHIT elsewhere.

 

[Red Front]

My wife having grown up in the Soviet Union does give me a more accurate view of whet life was like. In fact she had a very happy life there. But she grew up in Brezhnev's time. There were definite advantages to life in the Soviet Union - for the majority of the people but only during Khrushchev's & Brezhnev's time. Life was a horror for most people during Stalin's reign. IT would have continued that way if Khrushchev had not arrested Beria.

The fact is that the implementation of Bolshevik "Socialism" is nothing but a fascist dictatorship that uses the propaganda of "Utopian Communism" to justify tyranny. Yes, Khrushchev & Brezhnev were fairly benevolent, but a benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

As for your nonsense about technology and artificial intelligence eliminating socioeconomic classes and market economics, I have to wonder if you really were born yesterday. You understand NOTHING about human behavior. Unfortunately the need for a socioeconomic hierarchy & competition is deeply ingrained in a huge majority of the human race. Around half of all humanity measure their own self worth based on their position in the "Tribal Hierarchy". What should we do? Execute all competitive people? (Very Stalinistic of you!). Should we imprison women that choose their mates based on economic status?

Learn something about people:

Hypergamy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not going to bother refuting your points since I'm working and don't have the time. Some seem feasible, others are ludicrious.

Your blabbing out pure Communist propaganda BULLSHIT. The type that even school children and even Communist party members would laugh at in the USSR.

My wife having grown up in the Soviet Union does give me a more accurate view of whet life was like.

Not necessarily.

In fact she had a very happy life there.

I'm not surprised, knowing what I know about the USSR. I've studied it extensively and I personally know Russians who were born and raised in the USSR. With the exception of one of them, they all valued, even loved their lives as Soviet citizens.

But she grew up in Brezhnev's time. There were definite advantages to life in the Soviet Union - for the majority of the people but only during Khrushchev's & Brezhnev's time.

Oh you mean when they weren't in the middle of a brutal civil war, being invaded by the most powerful capitalist empires in the world, like the US, UK and France, along with 12 other countries. Forced to fight 200 thousand foreign invaders, and the Russian white armies with their quarter million anti-socialist combatants. In the 1930s they had a short break, and were able to heavily industrialize and build the Soviet Union, until four million Germans invaded them in Operation Barbarossa. Hello? Stalin was a war president and leader.

The United States is protected by two vast oceans, requiring any would-be invader to get through that vast body of water with its troops and equipment. Not an easy task, especially in the modern age. Once they deploy they'll need to fight over 200 million Americans armed to the teeth. Good luck with that one! The US lost 0.3% of its population in WW2, about 460K Americans. Horrible, but keep in mind, the Soviets lost 14% of their population in WW2, an estimated 27 million Soviets. Did you get that? The Soviets lost much of their national infrastructure in WW2 and had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild, without a "Marshal Plan" or any assistance from the US.

In less than 15 years after WW2, the Soviets were a nuclear superpower, rivaling the US, economically, technologically, militarily, politically..etc. They were launching satellites into space. How can anyone in their right mind, poopoo that? Pretending that's not a great achievement.

The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, for its survival, from its founding in 1917 to its dissolution in 1991. One existential threat after another, fighting with much better established and provisioned capitalist powers. The United States had more than a century of industrialization ahead of Soviet Russia. It had better-established institutions and was better experienced and equipped to fight both hot and cold wars.

Nonetheless, the Soviets did pretty well, for a new kid on the block, considering all of the challenges and obstacles it had to face. Whoever asserts otherwise is being disingenuous at best. It became the second-largest economy in the world, rivaling the United States. To pretend that it was something trivial and lacking any virtue, impressive accomplishments, or redeeming qualities is just dishonest.

Was it perfect? No far from it. But to flippantly dismiss it as a complete failure, is an insincere assessment of the Soviet experiment. Yes, it failed, but capitalists also failed in their centuries-long struggle against the European royal aristocracy.

Did the European mercantile class defeat the kings and nobles of Europe in a single, decisive swoop of the sword? No. Material conditions have to be in place, for a mode of production to replace another. For a socioeconomic revolution, you need new and better technology and a few other conditions, for it to replace its predecessor. This doesn't occur overnight.

The merchants didn't become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century without the material conditions being in place, allowing them to mass produce goods and services, on an unprecedented scale. They overwhelmed their enemies, with their capital. Marx in his Communist Manifesto, mentioned the way the capitalist Republicans defeated the kings and feudal aristocracy of Europe.

"The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors,' and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade."

This passage emphasizes the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in dismantling the old feudal order and establishing the new capitalist order. The bourgeoisie, in their pursuit of capital and market expansion, broke down the traditional structures and relations of feudal society, replacing them with the impersonal and transactional relations of capitalism.

Why do capitalist apologists like you demand that socialism replace capitalism overnight in order to prove itself a legitimate and viable system of production? Why do you make such demands of socialism, when that was never a standard or metric of viability for capitalism in its struggle against feudalism? Why the double standard?

Life was a horror for most people during Stalin's reign.

Not necessarily. The Soviet Union wouldn't have lasted, if everyone hated it and was in a worse state than they were before the revolution. The 1930s saw the USSR undergo rapid industrialization. The Five-Year Plans initiated by Stalin aimed to transform the Soviet Union from a primarily agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse. This period saw the construction of massive infrastructure projects, the establishment of new cities, and significant advancements in various sectors. For many, this was a time of opportunity and upward mobility as the nation modernized at an unprecedented rate. WW2 stopped that progress with the invasion of four million Germans in 1941 in Operation Barbarossa.

At the height of the revolution and in WW2, I would agree with you, most Soviet Russians were in hell. And yet they still didn't betray their new Socialist leadership and motherland. They fought to preserve what they had built in the 1930s and through a whole decade of violent struggle in the 1920s, against both foreign invaders and domestic enemies.

​

When we were going through the Great Depression here in the United States in the 1930s, the Soviets were doing well. Thousands of American engineers and scientists moved to the USSR, to contribute to its development. Western European engineers, with Americans and Canadians, moved to Russia, to educate the Soviets and help them industrialize. It wasn't bad at all in the 1930s, with the exception of the famine in Ukraine in 1932. Famines were common in Ukraine, so to blame the Soviet government is a simplistic reactionary charge. How about the Kulaks who were burning fields and destroying equipment, even murdering socialist farmers, teachers..etc, in an attempt to stop collectivization? No one mentions that.

IT would have continued that way if Khrushchev had not arrested Beria.

How so? Khrushchev was the beginning of the end for the USSR. Russian Soviet socialism was so robust and capable in its ability to industrialize a nation, that it took 30 years from when Khrushchev betrayed Stalin in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party with his speech against him. That led to the slow but sure decline of the USSR's commitment to Stalin's methods of central planning, which were responsible for the Soviet Union's great decade of industrialization in the 1930s and allowed it to effectively mobilize against Germany during the war and later rebuild itself.

The Soviets didn't have an American-supported "Marshal Plan" as Western Europe and Japan had. The socialists had to rebuild, without any assistance, in the dawn of a Cold War with the United States, the world's only nuclear superpower.

The fact is that the implementation of Bolshevik "Socialism" is nothing but a fascist dictatorship that uses the propaganda of "Utopian Communism" to justify tyranny. Yes, Khrushchev & Brezhnev were fairly benevolent, but a benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

As for your nonsense about technology and artificial intelligence eliminating socioeconomic classes and market economics, I have to wonder if you really were born yesterday. You understand NOTHING about human behavior. Unfortunately the need for a socioeconomic hierarchy & competition is deeply ingrained in a huge majority of the human race. Around half of all humanity measure their own self worth based on their position in the "Tribal Hierarchy". What should we do? Execute all competitive people? (Very Stalinistic of you!). Should we imprison women that choose their mates based on economic status?

Learn something about people:

Your characterization of Bolshevik socialism as a "fascist dictatorship" erroneously conflates two distinct political ideologies.

1. Socialism vs. Fascism: Socialism, especially as envisioned by the Bolsheviks, seeks to establish a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. Fascism, on the other hand, is a far-right ideology that emphasizes nationalism, often to the point of extreme xenophobia, and maintains class distinctions. The Bolsheviks aimed for international solidarity of the working class, which contrasts sharply with the nationalist focus of fascism.
2. Benevolent Tyrants: Nothing but your opinion, based on Cold War, capitalist propaganda.
3. Technology and Socioeconomic Classes: The idea that technology, especially AI, can reshape socioeconomic structures isn't naive. Historically, technological advancements have always reshaped societies. The Industrial Revolution, for instance, drastically altered class structures and economic systems. It's not far-fetched to believe that AI and automation can and likely will do the same.
4. Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Hierarchy: While competition and hierarchy might be aspects of human behavior, they aren't immutable. Societies evolve, and what's considered "natural" or "normal" changes over time. For instance, feudal hierarchies were once deemed natural, but they've largely disappeared in modern societies.
5. Choosing Mates Based on Economic Status: This is a reductionist view of human relationships. While economic stability can be a factor in mate selection, it's one of many factors, including love, compatibility, shared interests, and values. In a society where basic needs are met and economic disparities are reduced, relationships might be even more based on personal compatibility rather than economic stratification. You're making a lot of unnecessary assumptions.

I'm not going to bother refuting your points since I'm working and don't have the time. Some seem feasible, others are ludicrious.

Your blabbing out pure Communist propaganda BULLSHIT. The type that even school children and even Communist party members would laugh at in the USSR.

While you might see my arguments as "Communist propaganda," I base them on historical and factual data. Dismissing them outright doesn't in anyways refute them. Good luck next time.

 

[Red Front]

One more thing:

Many Americans know that since the end of WWII, American Conservatives - who have 50% or more control of our Government - have used the United States as the strong arm of European Conservatives (colonialists).They have mostly successfully brainwashed millions of Americans into believing that the U.S. was capitalist above all else. That's why I've said that Americans need to return to American values and stop being lead by the false notion of European Capitalism. That has been leading us to Neo-Monarchy.

If you had it your way, these same Neo-Monarchists would take tyrannical control of the U.S. while professing to be leading us to a utopian communist state.

There was no substantial difference between Nicholas II, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev. They were all tyrants.

The fact is that Democracy is complicated - too complicated for you. People like you need to have one 'Alpha Male' who is your great leader and who you will follow to the death.

Note: Anyone that believes that the American Republican and Democratic parties are the same is either an idiot or has been sound asleep his whole life.

Nice try, but sell your Communist propaganda BULLSHIT elsewhere.

You're for democracy? How so? You're against democracy in the place where people spend most of their waking hours. At the workplace. Private business enterprises, are run like totalitarian regimes, do you care? No, you don't. Those who work the business, should own it together and run it democratically.

As far as your cheap, baseless charge of "utopianism". I'll rather be a utopian than a dystopian. Your politics and economics is going to lead America into techno-feudalism. About 45% of all jobs will be replaced within the next twenty years by advanced automation and AI. We had a Great Depression in this country with only 23% unemployment, what do you think is going to happen to our country, when we have 35% unemployment or 50% unemployment? We almost fought a second civil war during the Great Depression. If it wasn't for FDR's New Deal, this country would've plunged itself into another civil war.

​

That's what your economics and politics are going to lead this country into. Civil unrest and eventually another war. Do you think these billionaires are promoting a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income, out of the goodness of their hearts? The only reason many of them are promoting this idea is because they know what's coming. Advanced automation is going to eliminate wage labor. You can continue ignoring that fact, but that doesn't make me a "utopian". I believe in a better system, not a perfect one. We will eventually have to adopt a non-profit system of production, that doesn't need wage labor, markets, or money.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Not necessarily.




I'm not surprised, knowing what I know about the USSR. I've studied it extensively and I personally know Russians who were born and raised in the USSR. With the exception of one of them, they all valued, even loved their lives as Soviet citizens.




Oh you mean when they weren't in the middle of a brutal civil war, being invaded by the most powerful capitalist empires in the world, like the US, UK and France, along with 12 other countries. Forced to fight 200 thousand foreign invaders, and the Russian white armies with their quarter million anti-socialist combatants. In the 1930s they had a short break, and were able to heavily industrialize and build the Soviet Union, until four million Germans invaded them in Operation Barbarossa. Hello? Stalin was a war president and leader.

The United States is protected by two vast oceans, requiring any would-be invader to get through that vast body of water with its troops and equipment. Not an easy task, especially in the modern age. Once they deploy they'll need to fight over 200 million Americans armed to the teeth. Good luck with that one! The US lost 0.3% of its population in WW2, about 460K Americans. Horrible, but keep in mind, the Soviets lost 14% of their population in WW2, an estimated 27 million Soviets. Did you get that? The Soviets lost much of their national infrastructure in WW2 and had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild, without a "Marshal Plan" or any assistance from the US.

In less than 15 years after WW2, the Soviets were a nuclear superpower, rivaling the US, economically, technologically, militarily, politically..etc. They were launching satellites into space. How can anyone in their right mind, poopoo that? Pretending that's not a great achievement.

The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, for its survival, from its founding in 1917 to its dissolution in 1991. One existential threat after another, fighting with much better established and provisioned capitalist powers. The United States had more than a century of industrialization ahead of Soviet Russia. It had better-established institutions and was better experienced and equipped to fight both hot and cold wars.

Nonetheless, the Soviets did pretty well, for a new kid on the block, considering all of the challenges and obstacles it had to face. Whoever asserts otherwise is being disingenuous at best. It became the second-largest economy in the world, rivaling the United States. To pretend that it was something trivial and lacking any virtue, impressive accomplishments, or redeeming qualities is just dishonest.

Was it perfect? No far from it. But to flippantly dismiss it as a complete failure, is an insincere assessment of the Soviet experiment. Yes, it failed, but capitalists also failed in their centuries-long struggle against the European royal aristocracy.

Did the European mercantile class defeat the kings and nobles of Europe in a single, decisive swoop of the sword? No. Material conditions have to be in place, for a mode of production to replace another. For a socioeconomic revolution, you need new and better technology and a few other conditions, for it to replace its predecessor. This doesn't occur overnight.

The merchants didn't become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century without the material conditions being in place, allowing them to mass produce goods and services, on an unprecedented scale. They overwhelmed their enemies, with their capital. Marx in his Communist Manifesto, mentioned the way the capitalist Republicans defeated the kings and feudal aristocracy of Europe.



This passage emphasizes the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in dismantling the old feudal order and establishing the new capitalist order. The bourgeoisie, in their pursuit of capital and market expansion, broke down the traditional structures and relations of feudal society, replacing them with the impersonal and transactional relations of capitalism.

Why do capitalist apologists like you demand that socialism replace capitalism overnight in order to prove itself a legitimate and viable system of production? Why do you make such demands of socialism, when that was never a standard or metric of viability for capitalism in its struggle against feudalism? Why the double standard?



Not necessarily. The Soviet Union wouldn't have lasted, if everyone hated it and was in a worse state than they were before the revolution. The 1930s saw the USSR undergo rapid industrialization. The Five-Year Plans initiated by Stalin aimed to transform the Soviet Union from a primarily agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse. This period saw the construction of massive infrastructure projects, the establishment of new cities, and significant advancements in various sectors. For many, this was a time of opportunity and upward mobility as the nation modernized at an unprecedented rate. WW2 stopped that progress with the invasion of four million Germans in 1941 in Operation Barbarossa.

At the height of the revolution and in WW2, I would agree with you, most Soviet Russians were in hell. And yet they still didn't betray their new Socialist leadership and motherland. They fought to preserve what they had built in the 1930s and through a whole decade of violent struggle in the 1920s, against both foreign invaders and domestic enemies.

​

When we were going through the Great Depression here in the United States in the 1930s, the Soviets were doing well. Thousands of American engineers and scientists moved to the USSR, to contribute to its development. Western European engineers, with Americans and Canadians, moved to Russia, to educate the Soviets and help them industrialize. It wasn't bad at all in the 1930s, with the exception of the famine in Ukraine in 1932. Famines were common in Ukraine, so to blame the Soviet government is a simplistic reactionary charge. How about the Kulaks who were burning fields and destroying equipment, even murdering socialist farmers, teachers..etc, in an attempt to stop collectivization? No one mentions that.




How so? Khrushchev was the beginning of the end for the USSR. Russian Soviet socialism was so robust and capable in its ability to industrialize a nation, that it took 30 years from when Khrushchev betrayed Stalin in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party with his speech against him. That led to the slow but sure decline of the USSR's commitment to Stalin's methods of central planning, which were responsible for the Soviet Union's great decade of industrialization in the 1930s and allowed it to effectively mobilize against Germany during the war and later rebuild itself.

The Soviets didn't have an American-supported "Marshal Plan" as Western Europe and Japan had. The socialists had to rebuild, without any assistance, in the dawn of a Cold War with the United States, the world's only nuclear superpower.



Your characterization of Bolshevik socialism as a "fascist dictatorship" erroneously conflates two distinct political ideologies.

1. Socialism vs. Fascism: Socialism, especially as envisioned by the Bolsheviks, seeks to establish a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively. Fascism, on the other hand, is a far-right ideology that emphasizes nationalism, often to the point of extreme xenophobia, and maintains class distinctions. The Bolsheviks aimed for international solidarity of the working class, which contrasts sharply with the nationalist focus of fascism.
2. Benevolent Tyrants: Nothing but your opinion, based on Cold War, capitalist propaganda.
3. Technology and Socioeconomic Classes: The idea that technology, especially AI, can reshape socioeconomic structures isn't naive. Historically, technological advancements have always reshaped societies. The Industrial Revolution, for instance, drastically altered class structures and economic systems. It's not far-fetched to believe that AI and automation can and likely will do the same.
4. Human Behavior and Socioeconomic Hierarchy: While competition and hierarchy might be aspects of human behavior, they aren't immutable. Societies evolve, and what's considered "natural" or "normal" changes over time. For instance, feudal hierarchies were once deemed natural, but they've largely disappeared in modern societies.
5. Choosing Mates Based on Economic Status: This is a reductionist view of human relationships. While economic stability can be a factor in mate selection, it's one of many factors, including love, compatibility, shared interests, and values. In a society where basic needs are met and economic disparities are reduced, relationships might be even more based on personal compatibility rather than economic stratification. You're making a lot of unnecessary assumptions.

While you might see my arguments as "Communist propaganda," I base them on historical and factual data. Dismissing them outright doesn't in anyways refute them. Good luck next time.

If you want to continue this conversation, please keep your posts short and to a particular point. I do not have the time to read through your entire post or discuss each point (I'm working).

There was a reason that the USSR came to an end - the vast majority of the people, including many members of the Communist party, hated it.

My wife and her many friends and family have varying views on life in the USSR. Some of them hated it. My wife preferred it to living in the U.S.

That's because the USSR provided for all the major cost centers that people need. Housing, food, medical care, education, retirement etc.. The USSR gave her SECURITY that we do not have in the U.S. We are we'll aware that if we get laid off (which can happen at anytime) we could loose everything that we've worked for and end up homeless.

However, all of those things could be achieved in the U.S. through Democratic Socialism and Unions. A system that retains the rights of the individual (which did not exist in the USSR), it allows for differing opinions, dynamic policies, and which does not allow the dependence on the good will of whoever the current tyrant is.

What's worse about your philosophy is that you profess that a tyrannical authoritarian police state will lead to the promise of some magical utopian stateless, classless society.

That's like saying:

"Let's beat this horse until it turns into a Unicorn"

It ain't ever gonna happen. It's a BIG LIE!

 

[Hum Dinger]

You're for democracy? How so? You're against democracy in the place where people spend most of their waking hours. At the workplace. Private business enterprises, are run like totalitarian regimes, do you care? No, you don't. Those who work the business, should own it together and run it democratically.

As far as your cheap, baseless charge of "utopianism". I'll rather be a utopian than a dystopian. Your politics and economics is going to lead America into techno-feudalism. About 45% of all jobs will be replaced within the next twenty years by advanced automation and AI. We had a Great Depression in this country with only 23% unemployment, what do you think is going to happen to our country, when we have 35% unemployment or 50% unemployment? We almost fought a second civil war during the Great Depression. If it wasn't for FDR's New Deal, this country would've plunged itself into another civil war.

​

That's what your economics and politics are going to lead this country into. Civil unrest and eventually another war. Do you think these billionaires are promoting a UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income, out of the goodness of their hearts? The only reason many of them are promoting this idea is because they know what's coming. Advanced automation is going to eliminate wage labor. You can continue ignoring that fact, but that doesn't make me a "utopian". I believe in a better system, not a perfect one. We will eventually have to adopt a non-profit system of production, that doesn't need wage labor, markets, or money.

"techno-feudalism"...that's a great term. I've been calling it neo-monarchy. Perhaps Economic-Feudalism would be the best, since the disparity in income is much broader than what's being caused by technological advancements.

First, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE". That's a marketing term that just gets laughs from anyone that understands computers. They are dumb machines, they will always be dumb machines. The people that program them may be smart enough to fool the average Joe into believing that computers are intelligent, but they are not an never will be.

Note: Whoever came up with the idea of self-driving cars was an idiot. It had to be some marketing/Business clown.

As technology advances, the need for people that have technological skills will increase - replacing many of the lost jobs. Sorry if there's no more need for Black Smiths, but the human race will not stop evolving because some people can't keep up. The number of people choosing technological careers is increasing exponentially. People are adapting.

As I said in another post, everything that you propose to rectify thru Communism, can be fixed thru Democratic Socialism and strong Unions. Without a one party totalitarian state.

BTW - It was Thomas Paine that first proposed 'Universal Basic Income'. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about American political philosophies.

 

[Red Front]

If you want to continue this conversation, please keep your posts short and to a particular point. I do not have the time to read through your entire post or discuss each point (I'm working).

There was a reason that the USSR came to an end - the vast majority of the people, including many members of the Communist party, hated it.

My wife and her many friends and family have varying views on life in the USSR. Some of them hated it. My wife preferred it to living in the U.S.

That's because the USSR provided for all the major cost centers that people need. Housing, food, medical care, education, retirement etc.. The USSR gave her SECURITY that we do not have in the U.S. We are we'll aware that if we get laid off (which can happen at anytime) we could loose everything that we've worked for and end up homeless.

However, all of those things could be achieved in the U.S. through Democratic Socialism and Unions. A system that retains the rights of the individual (which did not exist in the USSR), it allows for differing opinions, dynamic policies, and which does not allow the dependence on the good will of whoever the current tyrant is.

What's worse about your philosophy is that you profess that a tyrannical authoritarian police state will lead to the promise of some magical utopian stateless, classless society.

That's like saying:

"Let's beat this horse until it turns into a Unicorn"

It ain't ever gonna happen. It's a BIG LIE!

If you want to continue this conversation, please keep your posts short and to a particular point. I do not have the time to read through your entire post or discuss each point (I'm working).

Wait till you get home. Some of your misconceptions require a thorough response and explanation. We're discussing a complex topic. More, seeing how you've been responding to me, practically always ignoring many of the points that I make in my responses to your disingenuous anti-communist, Cold War rhetoric, I'm no longer responding to you for your sake or to convince you of anything. I'm writing for the sake of others, who are genuinely interested in the truth. The "truth seekers" in our audience. So do whatever you want, that's up to you.

Being that you are a "champion of freedom", is your workplace run democratically? Do you elect your leadership? Do you own the business enterprise, that you are pouring your labor (life, time, presence) into, or does an absolute dictator or small group of elites own the enterprise and do whatever they want, even at the expense of your livelihood?

If you were truly a lover of liberty, as you portray yourself, you would be for both democracy in politics and in the workplace, where you spend much, if not most, of your waking hours. Our work is important, it's where we earn a "living" (the means to live). Society should demand democracy in both politics and the workplace. All unelected, unaccountable leadership should be identified as illegitimate. Not worthy of compliance or respect. It's a form of totalitarian oppression, with very few exceptions (in war, sometimes the rules change for the sake of survival).

There was a reason that the USSR came to an end - the vast majority of the people, including many members of the Communist party, hated it.

False. You don't need a majority of dissenters or to be members of a fifth column (embedded enemy agents, and saboteurs) for a country like the USSR to be dissolved. There was a vocal, influential segment of the Soviet leadership that was war-weary and no longer willing to continue struggling to survive in a Cold War. After the revolution and WW2, and a forty-year Cold War, placing the whole world and themselves at serious risk of nuclear annihilation, many, but not most, were done with the Soviet "experiment". They were willing to compromise, even eliminate the USSR.

They realized that the Soviet's original vision of establishing a communist society in Russia, was untenable, due to the power of the capitalist powers. The actual cause of their pessimism and exhaustion was the abandonment in the 1950s of the strict Stalinist form of socialism, with its five-year plans and central planning. Stalin was a "communist purest" when it came to central planning and that's why the USSR was so successful in the 1930s, in industrializing itself. Nikita Khrushchev abandoned Stalin, throwing him under the bus in his famous speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 25, 1956. That was the beginning of the end of the USSR. It took thirty-five years after that for it to die.

My wife and her many friends and family have varying views on life in the USSR. Some of them hated it. My wife preferred it to living in the U.S.

I appreciate the honesty. There were people who hated it, without a doubt, but there are many who loved it. The US became the manufacturing hub of the world after WW2 and the wealthiest, most powerful nation, economically and militarily. The American working class between 1950 and 1980 was the world's "aristocracy of labor", earning the best pay with the most benefits. Our middle class was the largest of any other country, enjoying the highest standard of living.

A significant % of Soviet citizens were impressed by this and wanted to have what we had. They were war-weary and exhausted with the Soviet revolutionary experiment. After the devastation of WW2, they found themselves in a Cold War with the United States, facing a nuclear holocaust.

That's because the USSR provided for all the major cost centers that people need. Housing, food, medical care, education, retirement etc.. The USSR gave her SECURITY that we do not have in the U.S.

Yes, it did and that's why it was able to survive so long, despite all of the challenges and obstacles to its survival.

We are we'll aware that if we get laid off (which can happen at anytime) we could loose everything that we've worked for and end up homeless.

Correct.

However, all of those things could be achieved in the U.S. through Democratic Socialism and Unions.

Yes, to a certain extent, it can be achieved through market socialism or a mixed economy with a robust social safety net for the working class and a workforce that is unionized. However, if we're going to use the word "socialism" correctly, then we have to recognize its objective, which is to eventually fully democratize production. Eliminating private property (not personal property), and replacing for-profit production with its markets and money, with non-profit production that no longer relies on markets or money.

With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, capitalism faces the elimination of wage labor, which by necessity inevitably leads to non-profit, marketless, moneyless production. Unless you intend to undermine human progress, block the development of intelligent automation technology, keeping production reliant on human wage labor (human drudgery), the adoption of high communism is necessary. That high communism, especially here in America, will be 100% democratic. Nothing else will be accepted. It has to respect the will and meet the needs of the American people.

A system that retains the rights of the individual (which did not exist in the USSR),

Soviet citizens did have rights and the means to influence their government. The level of authoritarianism in the USSR was higher than in the US, without a doubt, but it wasn't as bad as it is portrayed here in the West.
The following video wasn't produced by a socialist. Nonetheless, he did give a pretty accurate description of how "democracy" worked in the USSR:

Here is an even more detailed description of how elections worked, under Stalin, by a socialist:



The United States isn't a democracy either. We're a plutocracy (rule of the rich):


​

The USSR was at war and hence democracy suffered by being centralized. Here in the US "democracy" decreased during WW2, with rationing, price controls, factories being forced to manufacture weapons in support of the war, and of course all of the Japanese Americans being forced into concentration camps. Democracy suffers when a country is fighting for its survival. There would've been more democracy in the USSR if it wasn't constantly in a state of war.

it allows for differing opinions, dynamic policies, and which does not allow the dependence on the good will of whoever the current tyrant is. What's worse about your philosophy is that you profess that a tyrannical authoritarian police state will lead to the promise of some magical utopian stateless, classless society.

I don't promote a "tyrannical authoritarian police state", or utopianism. Your just spewing a bunch of cheap rhetoric. We're for workers, owning the means of production together and transitioning the economy into a non-profit, marketless economy through the use of advanced automation technology. In the past automation was limited, hence human beings still had to do much of the work. Today, thanks to powerful computers, robotics, and artificial intelligence, most jobs can be automated. Intelligent, autonomous machines, work 24/7, producing all of the goods and services that we rely on. This is a fact, not a fantasy.

We will eventually, whether you choose to recognize it or not, have to adopt a non-profit, democratic system of production, that no longer produced goods and services for the purpose of being sold in a marketplace for a profit. Capitalism is going to be by necessity, forced out and replaced by socialism and eventually high-communism. People in the West, especially here in the United States hate the word communism, but that's the best word to use, why reinvent the wheel? We should come to terms with the fact that advanced automation technology necessitates the adoption of democratic high-communism.

Communism doesn't have to be stateless or totalitarian as you disingenuously contend. The real tyranny is now under capitalist plutocracy.

​

 

[Red Front]

"techno-feudalism"...that's a great term. I've been calling it neo-monarchy. Perhaps Economic-Feudalism would be the best, since the disparity in income is much broader than what's being caused by technological advancements.

First, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE". That's a marketing term that just gets laughs from anyone that understands computers. They are dumb machines, they will always be dumb machines. The people that program them may be smart enough to fool the average Joe into believing that computers are intelligent, but they are not an never will be.

Note: Whoever came up with the idea of self-driving cars was an idiot. It had to be some marketing/Business clown.

As technology advances, the need for people that have technological skills will increase - replacing many of the lost jobs. Sorry if there's no more need for Black Smiths, but the human race will not stop evolving because some people can't keep up. The number of people choosing technological careers is increasing exponentially. People are adapting.

As I said in another post, everything that you propose to rectify thru Communism, can be fixed thru Democratic Socialism and strong Unions. Without a one party totalitarian state.

BTW - It was Thomas Paine that first proposed 'Universal Basic Income'. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about American political philosophies.

"techno-feudalism"...that's a great term. I've been calling it neo-monarchy. Perhaps Economic-Feudalism would be the best, since the disparity in income is much broader than what's being caused by technological advancements.

First, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE". That's a marketing term that just gets laughs from anyone that understands computers. They are dumb machines, they will always be dumb machines. The people that program them may be smart enough to fool the average Joe into believing that computers are intelligent, but they are not an never will be.

The statement appears to revolve around a semantic argument about what constitutes "intelligence" and how we define "artificial intelligence" (AI). Let's break down this extremely dumb argument step by step.

1. "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE'":
   
   • AI doesn't have consciousness, self-awareness, or emotions as humans do. However, the term "artificial intelligence" doesn't claim to replicate human consciousness. Instead, it refers to machines that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence. This includes recognizing patterns, learning from experience, making decisions, and processing language, among other things. You're just resorting to cheap semantics.
2. "That's a marketing term that just gets laughs from anyone that understands computers.":
   
   • While marketing does exaggerate capabilities, AI as a field has deep-rooted academic, research, and practical foundations. Universities, institutions, and tech giants globally have AI research departments. The term "AI" originates from academic circles, not marketing. The progress in AI isn’t fictional or merely for show; it has led to tangible benefits in various sectors, including healthcare, finance, automotive, and more.
3. "They are dumb machines, they will always be dumb machines.":
   
   • The term "dumb" implies a lack of capability. It's true that machines don't have emotions, intent, or consciousness. But when it comes to processing information, making calculations, recognizing patterns, and even learning from data, machines can be incredibly smart. AI models, for example, can recognize and generate human-like text, predict stock market trends, or diagnose diseases from medical imagery, tasks that require high degrees of "intelligence" when humans perform them.
4. "The people that program them may be smart enough to fool the average Joe...":
   
   • AI is not about "fooling" anyone. It’s about creating algorithms that can process vast amounts of information quickly and accurately. Take machine learning, a subset of AI, where the algorithm learns and improves from data without being explicitly programmed for every possible outcome. This isn't a magic trick or deception; it's based on mathematical and statistical methods.
5. "...but they are not and never will be [intelligent].":
   
   • This comes back to the definition of "intelligence". If by "intelligence", one means human-like consciousness, emotions, and intent, then current AI systems aren't "intelligent" in that sense. But if "intelligence" refers to the ability to process information, learn, adapt, and make informed decisions based on data, then AI systems certainly exhibit a form of high intelligence, albeit artificial.

Note: Whoever came up with the idea of self-driving cars was an idiot. It had to be some marketing/Business clown.

Self-driving vehicles are a very useful technology, that will revolutionize transportation and our economy at many different levels. The logistics of transporting goods are much easier when it becomes automated and no longer reliant on human drivers. Unlike humans, self-driving, autonomous trucks don't need to sleep or rest. They work 24/7, with less accidents.

As technology advances, the need for people that have technological skills will increase - replacing many of the lost jobs. Sorry if there's no more need for Black Smiths, but the human race will not stop evolving because some people can't keep up. The number of people choosing technological careers is increasing exponentially. People are adapting.

It's capitalism, an economic system that relies on wage labor which is going the way of the dodo, not your fellow human beings who need food, housing, clothing..etc. I will throw your beloved pursuit of profits and personal, selfish aspirations for dominance and power, in the trashcan, before I cast my fellow human beings under the bus.

There will never be enough IT jobs to replace the tens of millions of jobs that automation is going to replace. The capitalists know this and that's why they're proposing the government give everyone a "UBI" i.e. Universal Basic Income. They recognize that advanced automation and artificial intelligence, are going to eliminate most jobs and there aren't going to be enough jobs to replace all of the jobs that are lost.

Not everyone can become a robot technician or programmer. They either don't have the smarts to figure it out or they simply don't want to be working with robots and computers. It takes a certain degree of patience and analytical skills to be a technician, not everyone can or even wants to do that. It would be torture for them, to be sitting in front of a computer all day, looking into a screen. I do it as a CNC programmer, and I have to force myself away from the computer. I do it, to stay healthy and not die. I love computers, coding, and debating socialism as an activist. Most people would hate to do what I do for a living, due to how long I'm sitting in front of a computer screen.

Those IT repair jobs, will also eventually disappear, due to the fact that this technology is intelligent and able to repair itself. Even now, there are systems that self-diagnose, debug, and repair themselves. So even the repair technician's job will be replaced by a robot as well. My job as a CNC operator and programmer is also going to be replaced within the next ten years by artificial intelligence. I have no doubt about that. I use artificial intelligence right now, to speed up my coding. Five years ago, I had to do everything from scratch. Not anymore. I have AI.

As I said in another post, everything that you propose to rectify thru Communism, can be fixed thru Democratic Socialism and strong Unions. Without a one party totalitarian state.

I never suggested that socialism or high-communism requires a one-party totalitarian state. That's your false straw man, bullshit polemic.

It's redundant for you to say "democratic", every time you say "socialism", because true socialism is by default democratic. It's like saying "violent war", whenever you say the word "war". Violence is already implied in the word "war", hence there's no need to add the word "violence" to war. There's no need to add "democratic" to the word socialism. It's simply socialism.

Socialism eventually eliminates private property and markets, by adopting high-tech production technology, like autonomous machinery and artificial intelligence. Once production becomes highly automated, it requires the adoption of a marketless, moneyless socialism. Advanced technology socializes and democratizes production, forcing by necessity the adoption of a non-profit, high-tech, marketless system of production. What you are proposing is a mixed market economy, before automation renders most jobs obsolete, replacing them with intelligent robots and other autonomous machines.

BTW - It was Thomas Paine that first proposed 'Universal Basic Income'. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about American political philosophies.

Perhaps you should take your head out of your ass and realize that UBI or Universal Basic Income will make the working class dirt-poor. Why should we keep capitalism on life support when it belongs in the compost heap, along with chattel slavery and feudalism? You essentially want to force humanity into techno-feudalism.

TECNO-FEUDALISM​

 

[Hum Dinger]

Wait till you get home. Some of your misconceptions require a thorough response and explanation. We're discussing a complex topic. More, seeing how you've been responding to me, practically always ignoring many of the points that I make in my responses to your disingenuous anti-communist, Cold War rhetoric, I'm no longer responding to you for your sake or to convince you of anything. I'm writing for the sake of others, who are genuinely interested in the truth. The "truth seekers" in our audience. So do whatever you want, that's up to you.

Being that you are a "champion of freedom", is your workplace run democratically? Do you elect your leadership? Do you own the business enterprise, that you are pouring your labor (life, time, presence) into, or does an absolute dictator or small group of elites own the enterprise and do whatever they want, even at the expense of your livelihood?

If you were truly a lover of liberty, as you portray yourself, you would be for both democracy in politics and in the workplace, where you spend much, if not most, of your waking hours. Our work is important, it's where we earn a "living" (the means to live). Society should demand democracy in both politics and the workplace. All unelected, unaccountable leadership should be identified as illegitimate. Not worthy of compliance or respect. It's a form of totalitarian oppression, with very few exceptions (in war, sometimes the rules change for the sake of survival).



False. You don't need a majority of dissenters or to be members of a fifth column (embedded enemy agents, and saboteurs) for a country like the USSR to be dissolved. There was a vocal, influential segment of the Soviet leadership that was war-weary and no longer willing to continue struggling to survive in a Cold War. After the revolution and WW2, and a forty-year Cold War, placing the whole world and themselves at serious risk of nuclear annihilation, many, but not most, were done with the Soviet "experiment". They were willing to compromise, even eliminate the USSR.

They realized that the Soviet's original vision of establishing a communist society in Russia, was untenable, due to the power of the capitalist powers. The actual cause of their pessimism and exhaustion was the abandonment in the 1950s of the strict Stalinist form of socialism, with its five-year plans and central planning. Stalin was a "communist purest" when it came to central planning and that's why the USSR was so successful in the 1930s, in industrializing itself. Nikita Khrushchev abandoned Stalin, throwing him under the bus in his famous speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 25, 1956. That was the beginning of the end of the USSR. It took thirty-five years after that for it to die.




I appreciate the honesty. There were people who hated it, without a doubt, but there are many who loved it. The US became the manufacturing hub of the world after WW2 and the wealthiest, most powerful nation, economically and militarily. The American working class between 1950 and 1980 was the world's "aristocracy of labor", earning the best pay with the most benefits. Our middle class was the largest of any other country, enjoying the highest standard of living.

A significant % of Soviet citizens were impressed by this and wanted to have what we had. They were war-weary and exhausted with the Soviet revolutionary experiment. After the devastation of WW2, they found themselves in a Cold War with the United States, facing a nuclear holocaust.



Yes, it did and that's why it was able to survive so long, despite all of the challenges and obstacles to its survival.



Correct.



Yes, to a certain extent, it can be achieved through market socialism or a mixed economy with a robust social safety net for the working class and a workforce that is unionized. However, if we're going to use the word "socialism" correctly, then we have to recognize its objective, which is to eventually fully democratize production. Eliminating private property (not personal property), and replacing for-profit production with its markets and money, with non-profit production that no longer relies on markets or money.

With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, capitalism faces the elimination of wage labor, which by necessity inevitably leads to non-profit, marketless, moneyless production. Unless you intend to undermine human progress, block the development of intelligent automation technology, keeping production reliant on human wage labor (human drudgery), the adoption of high communism is necessary. That high communism, especially here in America, will be 100% democratic. Nothing else will be accepted. It has to respect the will and meet the needs of the American people.



Soviet citizens did have rights and the means to influence their government. The level of authoritarianism in the USSR was higher than in the US, without a doubt, but it wasn't as bad as it is portrayed here in the West.
The following video wasn't produced by a socialist. Nonetheless, he did give a pretty accurate description of how "democracy" worked in the USSR:

Here is an even more detailed description of how elections worked, under Stalin, by a socialist:



The United States isn't a democracy either. We're a plutocracy (rule of the rich):


​

The USSR was at war and hence democracy suffered by being centralized. Here in the US "democracy" decreased during WW2, with rationing, price controls, factories being forced to manufacture weapons in support of the war, and of course all of the Japanese Americans being forced into concentration camps. Democracy suffers when a country is fighting for its survival. There would've been more democracy in the USSR if it wasn't constantly in a state of war.



I don't promote a "tyrannical authoritarian police state", or utopianism. Your just spewing a bunch of cheap rhetoric. We're for workers, owning the means of production together and transitioning the economy into a non-profit, marketless economy through the use of advanced automation technology. In the past automation was limited, hence human beings still had to do much of the work. Today, thanks to powerful computers, robotics, and artificial intelligence, most jobs can be automated. Intelligent, autonomous machines, work 24/7, producing all of the goods and services that we rely on. This is a fact, not a fantasy.

We will eventually, whether you choose to recognize it or not, have to adopt a non-profit, democratic system of production, that no longer produced goods and services for the purpose of being sold in a marketplace for a profit. Capitalism is going to be by necessity, forced out and replaced by socialism and eventually high-communism. People in the West, especially here in the United States hate the word communism, but that's the best word to use, why reinvent the wheel? We should come to terms with the fact that advanced automation technology necessitates the adoption of democratic high-communism.

Communism doesn't have to be stateless or totalitarian as you disingenuously contend. The real tyranny is now under capitalist plutocracy.

​

First, you should get a job. It's obvious that you don't work or you wouldn't have the time to post these mammoth narratives.

You should decide a few points and stick to them, not just a mindless and endless narrative.

To touch on a few of your points:

There was no workers Democracy in the USSR. Industrial leadership was determined by the Communist Party.

The USSR did not survive "for so long". It was as we Liberals predicted a "flash in the pan".

You are the one that professed a stateless, classless society. I just debunked that lie.

Yes, the USSR was totalitarian. First everyone that disagreed with the tyrant was imprisoned or killed - including many people who were loyal to Communist ideals. Beria tolerated no dissent.

Finally it's YOU who are the tool of the Fascist-Capitalist system. It's you that have professed a nonsensical totalitarian system that was created to scare the daylights out of the workers of Western Civilization - and turn them fanatically against any idea of Socialism or liberalism.

Where do you think Lenin & Moa did there banking? SWITZERLAND. They were tools of the Western banking system on a mission to implement a form of socialism so repugnant that Western Workers would be scare to death of any form of socialism.

That's why the Korean & Vietnam wars went on for so many years. The Western Powers easily could have won those wars quickly. But the ruling elite, the Fascist-capitalists, couldn't care less about either Korea or Vietnam. They were scared of a democratically elected socialist government - and still are. The purpose of those wars was to create a core of fanatically Anti-Socialist American workers and nothing more.

But fools like you keep playing into the hands of the Fascist-Capitalists and successfully help to block a successful Democratic Socialist system from being implemented.

 

[Red Front]

First, you should get a job. It's obvious that you don't work or you wouldn't have the time to post these mammoth narratives.

You should decide a few points and stick to them, not just a mindless and endless narrative.

To touch on a few of your points:

There was no workers Democracy in the USSR. Industrial leadership was determined by the Communist Party.

The USSR did not survive "for so long". It was as we Liberals predicted a "flash in the pan".

You are the one that professed a stateless, classless society. I just debunked that lie.

Yes, the USSR was totalitarian. First everyone that disagreed with the tyrant was imprisoned or killed - including many people who were loyal to Communist ideals. Beria tolerated no dissent.

Finally it's YOU who are the tool of the Fascist-Capitalist system. It's you that have professed a nonsensical totalitarian system that was created to scare the daylights out of the workers of Western Civilization - and turn them fanatically against any idea of Socialism or liberalism.

Where do you think Lenin & Moa did there banking? SWITZERLAND. They were tools of the Western banking system on a mission to implement a form of socialism so repugnant that Western Workers would be scare to death of any form of socialism.

That's why the Korean & Vietnam wars went on for so many years. The Western Powers easily could have won those wars quickly. But the ruling elite, the Fascist-capitalists, couldn't care less about either Korea or Vietnam. They were scared of a democratically elected socialist government - and still are. The purpose of those wars was to create a core of fanatically Anti-Socialist American workers and nothing more.

But fools like you keep playing into the hands of the Fascist-Capitalists and successfully help to block a successful Democratic Socialist system from being implemented.

First, you should get a job. It's obvious that you don't work or you wouldn't have the time to post these mammoth narratives.

Writing "mammoth narratives" that debunk your moronic bullshit is my work and job as a political activist and writer. I'm also a CNC operator and coder, with a union contract. I work two days weekly and most of my income comes from my political activism and books that I publish. You obviously have a skewed capitalist conception of what work and being useful means.

You should decide a few points and stick to them, not just a mindless and endless narrative.

I should do whatever I want to do with respect to debunking your moronic anti-socialist rhetoric. You saying my responses are "mindless narratives", don't make them so. You have to demonstrate through rational arguments and evidence how they are what you contend, otherwise, you're just full of shit.

More, do you actually think I'm responding to you with the intention of convincing you of anything? I'm not writing to convince you, because I know you're fucking braindead. I write for others, not you. I wouldn't waste a second of my precious time and energy responding to your garbage rhetoric if you were the only one reading the posts on this thread.

To touch on a few of your points:

Finally, let's see if you actually respond to more than one or two points...

There was no workers Democracy in the USSR. Industrial leadership was determined by the Communist Party.

When discussing the concept of "workers' democracy" in the USSR, it's important to understand the nuances of the term and not assume that it depends only on the state's "industrial leadership".

1. What We Mean by "Workers' Democracy": When communists talk about "workers' democracy", we're not just referring to who's at the top of the industrial ladder. We're referring to the entire spectrum of rights, benefits, and guarantees that workers experienced. Sure, the Soviet system had its flaws, but it also provided workers with a host of social guarantees that don't exist here in the United States.
2. Job Security: The USSR practically guaranteed employment for everyone. The state-orchestrated most production aspects, and as a result, job security was given to everyone. You'd hardly hear about unemployment because everyone had a role in the economy, unlike in our current capitalist-run system here in the US.
3. Let's Talk Healthcare: Every Soviet citizen had access to universal healthcare. While there might have been variations in service quality, nobody was going bankrupt over medical bills. If you were a worker and you fell sick, you not only had access to free medical care but also sick leave. You didn't lose your job, as many American workers do when they get sick and can't go to work for a few days.
4. Housing Benefits: Housing was a given right. Sure, the waiting lists for state-provided apartments were long, and they weren't luxurious, but you had a roof over your head. And getting kicked out due to unpaid rent was virtually unheard of. Rent was peanuts and everyone who could work had a job. If a person couldn't work, their rent was subsidized by the state.
5. Other Perks: Beyond these, the USSR had a bouquet of other social benefits up its sleeve - free education, holidays at a fraction of the cost, and benefits for expecting mothers, to name a few.
6. Political Rights - The Elephant in the Room: Now, I won't deny the fact that political freedoms were restricted. The right to voice opinions, gather for causes, or associate with any political faction was mostly curtailed unless you were a socialist/communist. But when I talk about "workers' democracy", I'm drawing attention to socio-economic rights, not just political ones. One should also consider the fact that the USSR was in a state of war from its founding in 1917 to its dissolution in 1991. When a country is in a state of war, power is centralized and democracy suffers. Here in the US there wasn't much democracy during WW1 and WW2. Freedom of speech, nationwide rationing enforced by law, government price controls, and of course
7. Regarding Industrial Leadership: Yes, the Communist Party had the final say in industrial leadership, but workers weren't entirely voiceless. They had trade unions, albeit different from what we see in the West. These unions, even under the Party's control, were a platform for workers and had a say in workplace decisions.

In essence, while the USSR might not have offered "workers' democracy" in a Western sense, especially politically, workers did enjoy a range of socio-economic rights. It's all about understanding the broader picture and the distinct layers of what "democracy" meant in the Soviet context.

You continue to point to the USSR as if it eternally sets the standard for socialism in the future. Your disingenuous claim that socialism will never work because the USSR failed, is irrational. It's a logical fallacy, but unfortunately, you're too dumb to realize that.

The USSR did not survive "for so long". It was as we Liberals predicted a "flash in the pan". You are the one that professed a stateless, classless society. I just debunked that lie.

I never claimed that the USSR was stateless, nor that high communism can only exist without a state. You only debunked your own delusional misconceptions about what I actually said.

Yes, the USSR was totalitarian. First everyone that disagreed with the tyrant was imprisoned or killed

That's bullshit. Stalin had political opponents who were never imprisoned or killed. Those who were planning a coup or to assassinate Stalin were certainly imprisoned or executed. Nonetheless, people who disagreed with him were imprisoned, much less killed.

• 
  Nikita Khrushchev: Though he was a staunch supporter of Stalin during his reign, Khrushchev took a different tone after Stalin's death. In his 1956 "Secret Speech," Khrushchev criticized many of Stalin's actions and initiated the process of "De-Stalinization." While not a direct opponent during Stalin's life, his posthumous critique was significant and eventually led to the demise of the USSR.
• Vyacheslav Molotov: A close ally of Stalin for much of his reign, Molotov had several moments of disagreements and tensions with Stalin, especially in the later years.
• Lazar Kaganovich: Another of Stalin's close associates, Kaganovich disagreed with Stalin on several policies, especially concerning the management of the Soviet economy. Despite these disagreements, Kaganovich remained a prominent figure in Soviet politics and survived the purges, he wasn't a traitor.
• Andrei Andreyev: Once a prominent member of Stalin's government, Andreyev lost favor with Stalin due to his views on how to run the economy and was never persecuted.
• Anastas Mikoyan: While generally supportive of Stalin, Mikoyan had several policy disagreements, especially regarding the treatment of Armenians. He was never imprisoned or executed.

There were many more.

- including many people who were loyal to Communist ideals. Beria tolerated no dissent.

Not political opinions but rather betrayal. Those working against the survival of the USSR.

Finally it's YOU who are the tool of the Fascist-Capitalist system. It's you that have professed a nonsensical totalitarian system that was created to scare the daylights out of the workers of Western Civilization - and turn them fanatically against any idea of Socialism or liberalism.

I'm for democracy and true socialism, not your bullshit watered-down version.

Where do you think Lenin & Moa did there banking? SWITZERLAND. They were tools of the Western banking system on a mission to implement a form of socialism so repugnant that Western Workers would be scare to death of any form of socialism.

That's why the Korean & Vietnam wars went on for so many years. The Western Powers easily could have won those wars quickly. But the ruling elite, the Fascist-capitalists, couldn't care less about either Korea or Vietnam. They were scared of a democratically elected socialist government - and still are. The purpose of those wars was to create a core of fanatically Anti-Socialist American workers and nothing more.

But fools like you keep playing into the hands of the Fascist-Capitalists and successfully help to block a successful Democratic Socialist system from being implemented.

Gobbledygook. Present your evidence or you're one of these people:

​

True socialists know better than to fall for the UBI (Universal Basic Income), which you support. That's nothing but an attempt to keep capitalism on life-support. You obviously don't know what socialism is.

​

 

[Hum Dinger]

Writing "mammoth narratives" that debunk your moronic bullshit is my work and job as a political activist and writer. I'm also a CNC operator and coder, with a union contract. I work two days weekly and most of my income comes from my political activism and books that I publish. You obviously have a skewed capitalist conception of what work and being useful means.



I should do whatever I want to do with respect to debunking your moronic anti-socialist rhetoric. You saying my responses are "mindless narratives", don't make them so. You have to demonstrate through rational arguments and evidence how they are what you contend, otherwise, you're just full of shit.

More, do you actually think I'm responding to you with the intention of convincing you of anything? I'm not writing to convince you, because I know you're fucking braindead. I write for others, not you. I wouldn't waste a second of my precious time and energy responding to your garbage rhetoric if you were the only one reading the posts on this thread.



Finally, let's see if you actually respond to more than one or two points...



When discussing the concept of "workers' democracy" in the USSR, it's important to understand the nuances of the term and not assume that it depends only on the state's "industrial leadership".

1. What We Mean by "Workers' Democracy": When communists talk about "workers' democracy", we're not just referring to who's at the top of the industrial ladder. We're referring to the entire spectrum of rights, benefits, and guarantees that workers experienced. Sure, the Soviet system had its flaws, but it also provided workers with a host of social guarantees that don't exist here in the United States.
2. Job Security: The USSR practically guaranteed employment for everyone. The state-orchestrated most production aspects, and as a result, job security was given to everyone. You'd hardly hear about unemployment because everyone had a role in the economy, unlike in our current capitalist-run system here in the US.
3. Let's Talk Healthcare: Every Soviet citizen had access to universal healthcare. While there might have been variations in service quality, nobody was going bankrupt over medical bills. If you were a worker and you fell sick, you not only had access to free medical care but also sick leave. You didn't lose your job, as many American workers do when they get sick and can't go to work for a few days.
4. Housing Benefits: Housing was a given right. Sure, the waiting lists for state-provided apartments were long, and they weren't luxurious, but you had a roof over your head. And getting kicked out due to unpaid rent was virtually unheard of. Rent was peanuts and everyone who could work had a job. If a person couldn't work, their rent was subsidized by the state.
5. Other Perks: Beyond these, the USSR had a bouquet of other social benefits up its sleeve - free education, holidays at a fraction of the cost, and benefits for expecting mothers, to name a few.
6. Political Rights - The Elephant in the Room: Now, I won't deny the fact that political freedoms were restricted. The right to voice opinions, gather for causes, or associate with any political faction was mostly curtailed unless you were a socialist/communist. But when I talk about "workers' democracy", I'm drawing attention to socio-economic rights, not just political ones. One should also consider the fact that the USSR was in a state of war from its founding in 1917 to its dissolution in 1991. When a country is in a state of war, power is centralized and democracy suffers. Here in the US there wasn't much democracy during WW1 and WW2. Freedom of speech, nationwide rationing enforced by law, government price controls, and of course
7. Regarding Industrial Leadership: Yes, the Communist Party had the final say in industrial leadership, but workers weren't entirely voiceless. They had trade unions, albeit different from what we see in the West. These unions, even under the Party's control, were a platform for workers and had a say in workplace decisions.

In essence, while the USSR might not have offered "workers' democracy" in a Western sense, especially politically, workers did enjoy a range of socio-economic rights. It's all about understanding the broader picture and the distinct layers of what "democracy" meant in the Soviet context.

You continue to point to the USSR as if it eternally sets the standard for socialism in the future. Your disingenuous claim that socialism will never work because the USSR failed, is irrational. It's a logical fallacy, but unfortunately, you're too dumb to realize that.




I never claimed that the USSR was stateless, nor that high communism can only exist without a state. You only debunked your own delusional misconceptions about what I actually said.




That's bullshit. Stalin had political opponents who were never imprisoned or killed. Those who were planning a coup or to assassinate Stalin were certainly imprisoned or executed. Nonetheless, people who disagreed with him were imprisoned, much less killed.

• 
  Nikita Khrushchev: Though he was a staunch supporter of Stalin during his reign, Khrushchev took a different tone after Stalin's death. In his 1956 "Secret Speech," Khrushchev criticized many of Stalin's actions and initiated the process of "De-Stalinization." While not a direct opponent during Stalin's life, his posthumous critique was significant and eventually led to the demise of the USSR.
• Vyacheslav Molotov: A close ally of Stalin for much of his reign, Molotov had several moments of disagreements and tensions with Stalin, especially in the later years.
• Lazar Kaganovich: Another of Stalin's close associates, Kaganovich disagreed with Stalin on several policies, especially concerning the management of the Soviet economy. Despite these disagreements, Kaganovich remained a prominent figure in Soviet politics and survived the purges, he wasn't a traitor.
• Andrei Andreyev: Once a prominent member of Stalin's government, Andreyev lost favor with Stalin due to his views on how to run the economy and was never persecuted.
• Anastas Mikoyan: While generally supportive of Stalin, Mikoyan had several policy disagreements, especially regarding the treatment of Armenians. He was never imprisoned or executed.

There were many more.



Not political opinions but rather betrayal. Those working against the survival of the USSR.



I'm for democracy and true socialism, not your bullshit watered-down version.




Gobbledygook. Present your evidence or you're one of these people:

View attachment 813566

​

True socialists know better than to fall for the UBI (Universal Basic Income), which you support. That's nothing but an attempt to keep capitalism on life-support. You obviously don't know what socialism is.

​

Once again, your ranting on and on and changing subjects just show poor writing skills. You babble. You could not pass a high school composition class.

It does seem unusual that a CNC operator would also be a coder. I've worked as an 'Engineering/Technician' on CNC machines. Coders never operate them. I may have physically built the electrical and electronics parts, while machinists built the mechanical parts, but the coders never touched the machines. Odd that you would work as an operator if you had coding skills.

Tin Foil Hat much?

Your first point is nonsense. There was no 'Workers Democracy' in the USSR. There may have been in Caledonia during the Spanish Civil War, but not in the USSR. You see, people aren't fooled by Communist propaganda and lies. We know what Democracy is, and while Communists may talk of 'Workers Democracy' it was nothing but a lie.

Wait I'm wrong. Communists were known to have open discussions, then they executed everyone that disagreed with them, then they held there votes.

Did the millions of people in the USSR that were forcibly relocated and those that died due to the relocation enjoy your 'Worker Democracy'?

Basically, they beat the horse to death, then called it a unicorn.

As for your points 2-5, I've already acknowledged that the USSR did provide for every major economic need of those people who were obedient and they didn't arrest or execute. BUT, all those major economic needs could be provided by Liberalism and Democratic-Socialism without the authoritarianism.

Point Number 5. There were no political OR economic rights in the USSR. Ownership was forbidden for almost everything. The government seized ownership of every significant asset. So if your saying that there were economic rights, they were only for the conformist sheep that had not yet been slaughtered - and those 'rights' went only as far as the government permitted - which means that they were not 'Rights' at all.

Point 7 is circular logic. They had phony Unions that were controlled by the Communist party - that's not a Union. I'm sure that minor grievances where conceded, but anybody that made any substantial problems were dealt with severely.

Your cherry picked history of Stalin's persecutions kind of leaves out a few million people. You don't even mention Beria. Not a very convincing assessment.

In short you propose a totalitarian police state, which murders all that dissent, which has no economic, political or personal freedoms, but only doles out some economic support to the people who are too scared to dissent. You promote a one party state where the government seizes all substantial properties.

Then say that you are for 'True Democracy'

You may be a true socialist in that you want to seize all property, it may be true that I'm not a true socialist because I believe in the rights of the individual and of property ownership. Neither I nor anyone else could give a damn about what a 'True Socialist" is.

Liberals and Democratic socialists have been very successful in creating a very high standard of living everywhere that they have been politically successful (Like most of Western Europe).

We have never succeeded in the U.S. because the Fascist/Capitalists have blocked us - and the primary cause of their blocking us is because of people like you promoting a brutal and idiotic form of government that scares the daylights out of the majority of Americans and gives any form of Liberalism and Social Democracy an bad name.