Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "USHANKA SHOW"
channel.
-
28
-
24
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
Interesting thing many surprisingly do not know. But the USSR conducted the largest and most successful ethnic cleansing in European history. To a degree it would likely of made even Hitler proud if he was the one that achieved it. I know a few million Baltic peoples, somewhere between 8-14 million ethnic Germans. I have no idea the number of Cossacks, Tatars and other minorities, but I know many Cossacks preferred to commit suicide than fall into the hands of the Soviets. But even before WWII many of them were also targeted, but the biggest happened after the war with massive border shifts, new occupied lands, and new enemies to cleanse their soil from. Basically most ethnic Germans from as far east as Stalingrad were forcefully migrated back to Germany or to labor colonies back east, even if they didn't speak a word of German just because of the war I think they estimated about 10% of which died, so that would be like 800,000 to 1.4million. Baltic States suffered the Great Terror, not once but twice, in 1939-41, and post war as well, hundreds of thousands from each country were forcefully migrated east to labor colonies as they were deemed to be too troublesome and against the ideals of the Worker Class.
Honestly don't know about Poland but honestly the Poles had it bad enough under the Germans, that there wasn't much worse the Soviets could do to Poland, but I have heard some people say the Soviet occupation was worse than the Germans, which coming from a Pole, sounds almost unbelievable as lets be frank the Nazis hated the poles and treated them like dirt, so I'm not that keen to agree with that opinion but I'm not an expert on what happened to Poland under Soviet Occupation.
But just from what I've read, it's very likely the USSR ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe of 20-30 million people since the 1920s up to the 1950s, and I'm not talking about murder, though that definitely took place I mean just flat out forced migrations, imprisonment, and Russification.
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
1:29 actually goes beyond that. Russia and China even after WWII had a number of border conflicts, of course almost wiped from history by both sides because "We are friends!" Sino-Soviet border conflict is a good example. Issue is the Soviet Union and Communist China didn't exactly have a rosie happy, and positive history toward each other. It's actually one of the reasons the USA pushed to improve relations with China knowing of the hostility that actually existed between it and the Soviet Union. Hoping to split the two biggest Communist countries away from each other, can leave it to historians to find out if that effort was successful or not.
This hostility dates back to WWII as well. USSR wanted to make China a puppet, backed a number of pro Communist factions during it's civil war era. When the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria she also stripped the region of just about everything of use, railroad ties, trains, plumping, etc similar to what the USSR did in Eastern Europe, pretty much looted/pillaged not the soldiers but the state itself, it ironically isn't too different to how the Nazis stole everything that wasn't nailed down, anything to boost their failing economy, in the USSR it was because well the USSR was absolutely devastated by the War and Stalin's policies before the war were not exactly well good for the economy either which the USSR was literally on the verge of utter collapse, so stealing even if it has to be a bath tub was pretty much necessary to give some semblance of growth on the civilian level otherwise civil unrest was a possibility.
Issue is when the USSR eventually gave Manchuria to the Communist Chinese and handed over the occupation of the region to them, they left the Chinese pretty much nothing of value. Mao at the time wasn't very happy about this and it wasn't a secret that the USSR pillaged and stole everything in Manchuria as the locals saw them doing it so Mao found out quick, and it was a start a long history of "Yes we shake hands!" But behind the scenes the Chinese had little trust toward the USSR.
Then again just about every former communist country or still didn't have much trust in eachother, it's actually one of those interesting aspects of cold war history. Today for example, Vietnam you'd think would be a good friend of China, but is actually one of China's biggest rivals in Asia, and is more closely allied with the anti Chinese Pacific Faction, the USA, Japan, India and the Philippines. North Korea is pretty much a Chinese Puppet State, and most of the rest of the Communist regimes have collapsed, or been replaced. Laos for example the Vietnamese technically liberated from a regime that was pretty much as brutal as the one that existed in Cambodia, a regime the Vietnamese and Chinese originally helped into power in Laos, Vietnam moved it to remove that regime because of the horrific crimes it was committing on it's people, and China who viewed Laos as a puppet attacked Vietnam for trying to conduct a Communist regime change against another Communist country. So ya, nothing is exactly Peachy under the glorious red Sun of Socialist World Unity? Is it? Seems they hate eachother, and fear eachother about as much as the west.
12
-
12
-
11
-
I find it kind of ironic when I read once that Lenin banned "Striking" in the Soviet Union, and lets say, it never really became "Unbanned" throughout the USSR's history. Even when the Party said it's okay, in actuality it wasn't okay. It is funny because banning worker's right to "Strike" was something people point at Hitler doing as proof he wasn't a Socialist, yet they flat out ignore within the Soviet Union even the Prophet Lenin himself, also banned protest and striking.
This reason for this, if your movement is meant to represent the working man, and yes the Nazis believed they did. If people were protesting/striking against the Party, then it would be proof the Party didn't have the Worker's Interest at heart. Which would undermined the entire movement. So you were banned from even doing so. Since the party had your best interest at heart, striking was no longer necessary. winks
It's a similar issue with why Stalin was obsessed with getting all Soviet citizens returned to the USSR after WWII, regardless whether they wanted to return of not. The US and British governments aided in forceful repatriation of millions of eastern Europeans many of which didn't want to return. Those who didn't want to return were forced, and sometimes violently. Good example are Soviet POWs who were captured in German uniform and were forced by the Nazis to man the Atlantic Wall. A lot were captured, a lot of them preferring to commit self deletion rather than returning, the US Military resorting to drugging them just to get them on a Soviet merchant ship.
Mind you all that happened before Stalin played his hand and made the Cold War happen, and proved to the west he couldn't be trusted as an Ally. At the time the US/UK were trying to appease him. I would state the specific operation as Operation K%%l Haul < and sadly yes that gets comments deleted because the US/UK governments still denied it happened despite being proven to have happened. If you recall 006 from Goldeneye the story is actually brought up in that film with the main villain being a victim of the repatriations. TIKhistory actually has a 3 part video series on this Operation and it's kind of a sad story for a lot of people.
However, the reason for all this, was that all these people knew what it really was like inside the USSR, and many of them didn't want to come back after being Prisoners in central or western europe. According to some even being in a concentration camp was better than living under Stalin, which is a terrifying thought because we know those camps were not good places. Basically to sum it up, allowing these people not to return would of created a permanent voice outside the USSR on how terrible the USSR actually was and the USSR was always obsessed with it's image internationally, and how the outside world viewed it.
It's also why going on Vacation abroad as a Soviet citizen was lets say heavily monitored and scripted. You had to be part of a tour group operated by the Soviet Union or a Cruise ship. Basically attempting to safeguard your pure mind. They didn't want their citizens to see the world as it really was outside the USSR. Otherwise they'd see the USSR for what it really was.
10
-
9
-
8
-
6:36 to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised someone who understood Lenin so well, would become a turncoat. For a number of plausible reasons. Two best and most likely.
1. He understood Lenin not just at his best, but at his worst and what his ideas did to the Soviet Union and Ukraine. Stalin was basically the worst of Lenin cranked to 11 for example, but it started with Lenin.
2. He was an Opportunist, similar to Lenin. This will take a bit of explaining but... Lenin had a dark side, few seem to care to see definitely his religious followers. Lenin turned on most of the less extreme Socialist in Russia and at times even had many of them killed. Despite all the preaching Lenin did, books he wrote, it's hard to believe he was actually sincere about any of it once he was in a position of power. Best example is when he pretty much officially split the idea of Socialism and Communism. Prior to Lenin they were pretty much synonyms of each other in the Marxist camp. Lenin split the terms, as an excuse on why the USSR was not the Anarchist anti "State" society that Marx promised, but a State heavy Bureaucracy. So he claimed "This is Socialism, not Communism, we haven't reached Communism yet." Very well knowing they'd never not be a State Bureaucracy, ie he lied. Willingly.
7
-
External Capitalist forces kept the internal Socialist forces of the Soviet Union 'alive' which is often a great pun I like to throw at Commiboos and tankies. At least until the Cold War, but even then the USSR actively traded/worked with even many NATO countries. Importing/exporting materials/production goods, etc etc. I know a lot of Commiboos say the west starved the Soviet Union into submission. But when you hear that McDonalds and Pepsi were things in the USSR by the late 1980s I just don't see that being a reality.
Biggest contrast I can think of between life in the USA vs life in the USSR though is my Grandparent's old 100+ year old farm home had running water, and eventually air conditioning. It had running water since the 1930s, and air conditioning since the 1980s. Meanwhile I saw a documentary which showed entire labor colonies in the USSR in which the homes didn't have running water. I mean if a Rural farmer in the USA could afford to install running water in their own home, sourced from a Local Well, I don't see why so many Rural people still have out houses in the Former Soviet States.
It makes TIKhistory's video in which he argued whether the USSR ever recovered from WWII, and came to the conclusion that it's possible the USSR never recovered even from the Revolution itself, when it came to the average quality of life per capta throughout western/central Europe and the USA. Hearing horror stories of how many hospitals in the USSR didn't even have running water, and those that did didn't even all have hot water because they had no access to gas or wood furnaces to heat the water. TIKhistory came to the conclusion mostly based on nutrition, what the average food that was available pre-1914 Russian Empire vs what Russia had available to him for 70/80s USSR.
7
-
5
-
@UshankaShow Well I would argue the issue is, Russia was the right place. Issue for a country like France/Germany is they lack raw material/resources and rely entirely on foreign trade for Iron, Coal, Gas, and Grain. Meaning without those resources such a socialist system was next to impossible without trade with outside Markets. Which if you want a system that operates without capital accumulation, it would be very difficult to get the capital to pay for those foreign materials.
Russia had it all, just Russia didn't have the industrial capacity at the time to capitalize on it. Which is why Stalin was so brutal trying to force that industrialization upon Russia. It's also the main reason Hitler invaded the USSR, Grain, and Oil for example, he had Iron, and access to Coal. He wanted to cut Germany off from the J**ish Capitalist/Marxist world order as he viewed it. To do that would require material he didn't have, Russia what he needed, with the added bonus in his eyes of getting rid of the Bolsheviks.
If you tried to make a Socialist or Communist country in Germany or France, you'd run into the same problem Hitler had.. no resources, and absolute reliance on foreign material, meaning your socialist state would end up being reliant entirely on foreign markets to survive.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@Notrusbot USA has not fought wars for resources, outside of preventing monopolization of resources by way of closed economies or cartels. Only non-capitalist economies like Mercantile or Socialist economies care about creating autarky on resources for example. Because Trading with non-Socialist countries is evil and Mercantilism was an old obsolete way of looking at economics a remnant of the old European way of trade. Which is why the old Empires literally just fell apart, after the realized free trade was superior to occupation/colonization.
This was the primary reason the USA got involved in WWII because actions like Japan/Germany actually broke down international trade, as both Japan and Germany tried to create Autarky. USSR did the same as well, spreading it's influence mostly to create it's own sphere of influence closed off from the rest of the world at the time.
USA's involvement in South America in the 19th/early 20th Century was the same way, the USA sought to kick out European Empires from the Americas, and open up trade within the Americas which ironically benefited everyone and most definitely South America. 30-80s Latin America was a paradise until Cartel Lords, Dictators, Communist rebellions, and Socialist politicians ruined it one country at a time.
Ironically even the "Oil" War of 1991 (Desert Storm) vs Iraq was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait which Kuwait because they destroyed their domestic economy. Kuwait was also one of the only Arab nations that didn't join OPEC which was is a oil Cartel.
Ironically most Arab countries also joined the USA in this campaign. Arab forces were actually tasked with liberating the Capital for political reasons, being it was considered most fitting that Arab troops should liberate Kuwait City.
Basically USA didn't get involved to monopolize resources of any kind but got involved to keep trade open preventing monopolization of resources.
Every other war the USA was involved in were not Oil Wars in the Middle East. Despite the memes/stereotypes.
Now European Empires, ya that's a different story, but as I already mentioned the USA stood up against Empires. Whether run by Monarchs, Fascist or Marxist. And yes the USSR was an Empire.
You can argue the USA is an empire, but the USA isn't a colonial Empire, but more of a soft power, financial empire. USA only really has military access to nations that ironically just want USA military protection, and in some cases the USA even pays the governments for access to say a port, and some facilities. Which isn't Colonialism, and honestly isn't exactly an Empire per se.
Currently today Russia is perhaps the best example of a Modern Empire in the traditional sense because it occupies entire countries that are considered parts of the "Federation" that are not Russian. They're not allowed to leave either, those that have tried were met with brutal military force.
PS before you mention nations like Iran and how the USA supported a coup there. It's because National Bolshevism, Marxism, Socialism and Nazism were the most popular ideologies within Arabia, so you can see the USA's worry when Iran decided to make exclusive trade deals with the USSR early in it's fledgling Democracy.
3
-
@Notrusbot Now you're venting and just threw your cards on the table, Contradulations.
Your examples don't even work.
Example: Russo Ukraine War. Well if Mexico hasn't been acting in the interest of the USA for decades now mind you, why has the USA not invaded Mexico? I mean you brought this example up right? USA has a long lasting friendship Canada and Mexico and both operate on their own interest, not the USA's interest. But by your logic since they don't operate on the USA's interest why has the USA not invaded them? You kind of have a serious plot hole in your argument, a plot hole because you don't actually understand history or geo politics outside of an obvious anti American bias position which you literally just threw on the table.
Name a country that the USA invaded that wasn't already at war, or started the fight to begin with since WWII? I can think of only one and almost no Americans look back at that president or war fondly. Because we know it was wrong. And if you know what you're talking about you can name that War in a heartbeat. I'm not going to tell you which one it is. Because I know you will likely guess wrong.
Your China example isn't a good example either because China has not been beating the USA at it's own game because it's been ironically cheating behind the scenes, like the person that takes a photo of a Lamborghini after test driving it and posting it on social media that they own it. You should join China Watchdog Channels/Activist Groups who are often run by people who lived in China and since left the country. They will point out that China's GDP figures are fabricated, and that China is currently almost caught up with the USA when it comes to debt after only twenty years of 'false' growth funded by the State using money the State never had. Unlike the USA that Debt is bought with fake wealth that also doesn't exist and isn't even really debt just poof gone, which is why the China bubble has been coming apart in the last 5 years. Almost everyone is pulling out of China even the company i work for has pulled out of China. It's going to collapse within the next decade many economist predict and mind you China isn't under economic sanctions or a blockade it's entirely their own doing. I mean it's why India, New Zealand, Mexico, Singapore among other countries are becoming the new Chinas.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rjames3981 Counts whether they can tell the difference between Socialism and Marxism. Problem I've had with a lot of historians for example, like Richard Evans or Ishay Landa is their very concept of Socialism is literally Marxism. Marxism is a version of socialism built around the Working Class, a very Classist centric version of Socialism. So when they see say Prussian Socialism and claim it isn't Socialism because it's doesn't elevate the working class like Landa points out, they're making that claim entirely from a Marxonian perspective, whether they realize it or not. As even Social Democracy branched off the Marxist movement in the 19th Century, so many of it's core beliefs are still Marxist, but.... Marxism, isn't Socialism, Marxism is a version of Socialism but it's not the definition of Socialism.
There is a reason when you look up the definition it will say Common Ownership, that Common can literally mean almost anything said specific group of Socialist want it to mean, which can include Workers. It's why the definition is idiotically vague.
So say you're a Feminist, and you want women to control the means of production, you're still a socialist. Curious what they would be called honestly Fem-Socialism?
Say you're a Nazi and you want the "Race" to control the means of Production, you're still a socialist. They didn't mind if a private owner still owned/operated the business as long as they did what the State told them, and that they were "German."
Say you're a Social Democrat and you want the State to Control the means of Production (Being a democratic state the people should be fairly represented as they believe.). Well that is also Socialism.
Marxism itself is literally Worker's Control the means of Production.
Socialism exist within a HUGE plethora of different iterations, ideas and concepts of what a Socialist society can be. It's actually why it's quite honest to say "Socialist don't know what socialism is." Because Socialist have yet to really figure out what it is... they're still experimenting.
Spengler the father of Prussian Socialism believed Society could organize itself along Nationality, ie putting the good of the nation and it's people above your own self interest, making capitalism obsolete. So all business operated with the goal of prosperity of the community, not themselves. Making a revolution unnecessary.
You can call Spengler's idea Proto Fascism but. Fascism was also born from Socialism, being most Italian Fascist were originally Syndicalist or Anarchist, in fact James Gregor refers to Fascism as National Syndicalism which is an accurate description of it.
PS Spengler is supposedly the roots of National Socialism in Germany, yet Spengler himself became an out spoken anti Nazi in the mid 1930s. His final book before he died was even banned by the party because he called them Bolsheviks in disguise, basically, despite what some historians have said, the National Socialist broke most of their promises to big business, not the working man, they even nationalized property by outlawing private property by law, something most socialist pretend they never did, there are reasons Spengler went from being a Pro NS to an Anti NS is ONE YEAR.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Notrusbot You don't understand those conflicts very well then. Taiwan specially, hope you're not reading China's version of events on this one, because I find it ironic that both South Korea and Taiwan, ie US backed regimes eventually became democratic yet the opposition the USA protected them from are still not Democratic. So ya.. strange isn't it?
To be blunt there is a lot of anti american propaganda spread about a lot of these conflicts sadly even within the USA which don't paint a great picture of the USA's involvement. I will concede on the post Spanish American War occupations of Philippines, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. But ironically those occupations actually gave Americans back home a nasty opinion of even the very concept of the USA becoming a Colonial Empire. Definitely the brutality of the Filipino War which actually saw some consequences for US officers involved and testimony by soldiers of atrocities committed before the US congress.
It's actually the reason why by the 1920s the USA had already helped the Philippines establish it's own government as a protectorate and later full independence. Of course the USA would still get military access to the Islands. Fun fact the only Peashooter Ace in history was a Filipino in 1941/42 Jesus A. Villamor. Mind you he also trained Eisenhower how to fly.
Panama Canal was a massive investment on the part of the USA, and finished what the French failed to do. Of course the USA would protect it's interest in Panama as a result. So I don't even know why this is brought up. This wasn't a "resource" war either, but the canal was a huge boost to trade/commerce not just for the USA but internationally as well, and also for Panama. Mind you since 1977 Panama has ownership of the Canal.
Banana Wars, were as I mentioned, preventing interest from outside of the Americas from influencing American politics, this including South American politics btw. For example, the Germans were arming and assisting Mexican rebels and insurrectionist in Mexico. USA was dealing with a massive refugee crisis as a result of Mexico's political, social and military instability and dealing with rebels. As well as a number of armed incursions by those rebels onto US Soil. So the USA got very proportional. Ironic as this is currently repeating right now, and the US unwillingness to get proportional has caused the USA a lot of issues as well as Mexico, but the Mexican Government claims it can handle it.. but...
Haiti being a good example, with the US intervention actually providing Haiti with the longest surviving government in it's nation's history up to that time. Prior to the US Involvement Haiti was in constant economic and political strife, collapsing/revolving governments every other year. The only time the US got involved militarily in Haiti it actually installed the Constitution of 1918, and the longest stable government Haiti had seen in generations, and tragically has seen since.
2
-
2
-
@debs-101 Dystopian regimes at their finest.
Hitler's idea of a People's State built on Racial Purity of blood, and ruled by those who prove their usefulness to society by merit. ie he used the idea of "Race" as a glue to bring people in society together.
Marxist ideologies are not much different. Switch out a Race focused People's State, and replace it with a Worker's State, and the Class is used as the glue that holds their "New" Society together, and you fundamentally have something that is different in name/fundamentals but in actual practice/implementation, too similar to ignore.
To sum it up. To create that Racial State, requires removing those from Society who get in the way of creating that Blood Pure Society.
To create a dictatorship of the Proletariat, requires removing all those in society who are enemies of the Proletariat, or are a threat to it's continued existence.
Look up quotes from Lenin about the Kulaks. Basically under Lenin he renamed a specific percent of the Rural Peasant Farming community Kulaks and dubbed them as evil as the bourgeoise, and this persecution of the rural Russian/Belarusian and Ukrainian farmers didn't end with Lenin, as you obviously know. Reason for these persecution primarily stems from agricultural reforms that happened under the Tsarist Russia which a large percent of farmland was actually sold back to the peasants that worked the fields/farms. Because of this, a lot of Rural farmers in Eastern Europe were Landowner. Owning Private Property made you "Evil" in the eyes of all Marxist. Of course when farmers resisted the appropriation of their land/property, Lenin had them ruthlessly crushed.
Lenin in 1918
"Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts [regions] must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this because we have now before us our final decisive battle with the kulaks.
We need to set an example. You need to hang – hang without fail, and do it so that the public sees – at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Take away all of their grain. Execute the hostages – in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.
This needs to be accomplished in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let’s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.”"
Makes my skin crawl that Lenin considered people who had two too many cows, and refused to give grain over to the red army "Rich Men, and Blood Suckers." When technically his regime stealing from Peasants made his "Red Army" a parasite.
Wasn't just Lenin either.
Josip Broz Tito Communist Leader of Yugoslavia post WWII.
"We will liquidate the kulaks, but not because he is a kulak but because he is a fifth columnist... The present struggle is national liberation in form, but class war in essence."
It's why to be honest, Classism and Racism are two sides of the same coin. Both label specific groups of people in society as evil, and use it to justify persecution, and at times mass murder.
2
-
2
-
3:00 Actually the primary definition of Socialism is Common Control. Not worker Control. Worker Control came about because of Marxism but the socialist movement pre-dates Marxism. When you look up Common Control it can literally mean almost anything under the sun that said "group" of socialist want it to mean at that particular time.
Which is why Austrian Economist "Ludwig von Mises" who gave rise to the Austrian School of Economics and was himself a former socialist in his youth before abandoning it entirely stated in one of his books that the Definition of Socialism has periodically changed throughout the century. And I paraphrased that as I don't know the exact quote. However, even today, there isn't a Consensus on what Socialism even is even among Socialist, and I'm not talking about the grunts on the ground but intellectuals. During the 19th Century Socialist activist had already split the movement into multiple different camps, and by the 19th Century even the Marxist camp had broken into rival groups. All having their own ideas on what Socialism is. Communism at one time and history even used to be a synonym for Socialism but has since been distanced from it primarily because of Lenin and the USSR, as an example how it's ever changing.
However, Common Control can include State Control, even in the Communist sense if you're in a Worker's State and the State consist of the Workers ie Soviets ie Trade Unions, hence the name Soviet Union originally, then well the Worker's are technically the State. Issue is those at the top of those worker's consuls live like kings. It's actually the same logic that the Italian Fascist used to claim they're the ultimate form of Democracy as a State that is the people, which means that even if the State controls everything the State is the people and in turn no one is a slave, and everyone is free because everyone is the state. Hence why Giovanni Gentile literally said "Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state." Fascism itself was built off of Marxist Syndicalism. They abandoned Classism and replaced it with Nationality. Which is why it isn't built around Labor, or Workers anymore. But they still push for State Centralized Control. Look up National Syndicalism, Fascist Syndicalism and Fascist Corporatism. It's quite interesting how many Italian and Austrian Fascist were former Marxist Socialist. Even German Fascist like Hitler and Sepp Dietrich were members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
2
-
@mattysav4627 I would argue the Communism and Socialism were Synonyms of each other so their goals used to be the same thing. Being they used to be part of the same general movement. As I already said between Intellectuals Socialism was a heavily split movement but for the common man supporting Socialism it was "one thing" to them Communism and Socialism were the same thing. Being Intellectuals still haven't decided what Socialism even is, as I mentioned Mises's claim that definition has changed constantly over time, heavily implies that socialist are still trying to figure out what Socialism is, which is an admission they actually don't' know. This is why you can often have multiple Socialist intellectuals today on a debate all having varied definitions of socialism, because it isn't a consensus yet even among those who champion it.
As I mentioned this has been a problem for Socialist for 200+ years now. Dates back nearly to the very beginning of the movement. I mean Proto Nazis existed already in the 19th Century with their own ideas of Socialism. Libertarian Socialism had already been founded by the 19th Century. State Socialism which is the most common Socialism which is included in Social Democracy, Preussen Socialism (Proto Nazis), Syndicalism ie Trade Unionism which includes Corporatism in my opinion being it branched from Syndicalism, ie making a country ruled by Trade Unions which the Soviet Union was pretty much being it was a Federation of Trade Consuls, so a Nation run by Trade Unions. Which is why I compare the USSR to Fascist Italy being Italy adopted Corporatism which was a less extreme form of Syndicalism. I know Syndicalist claim their movement is anti state but they still advocate creating a collective community which lets face it would be a state. Which is why I didn't mention Anarcho Syndicalist because honestly they're just Syndicalist but ones that adopted a contradiction.
I mean there are so many different forms of Socialism that it would be hard to make a definition of it, and it's understandable why Intellectuals have that problem.
I would recommend watching TIK History's videos on this subject. He does a great job quoting intellectuals from these movements in many of these videos, even if you do not agree with his conclusions.
TIK would claim that in the 1920s Socialist went through a large Socialist civil war in the heart of Europe. Which would give rise to Fascism, and eventually Nazism as some former socialist ended up rejecting the old ideas and decided to create their own socialism. Because that socialism civil war shattered their entire world view on socialism and they utterly lost faith in the socialist they used to follow.
The split in the German Socialist Democratic Party the SPD being a great example, or how Hitler and Deitrich were members of the Communist Party of Bavaria while many other eventual nazis served with the Freikorp under the Social Democratic (Also a Socialist Party) against the Communist, which is literal Socialist fighting Socialist. Even if the Freikorp was doing it on the SPD's behalf. But he is glad to point out that they were all Socialist in 1919/1920 yet were enemies. Similar to how Lenin absolutely destroyed the Social Democrats in the Russia which even formed a democratic government in Saint Petersburg which he destroyed btw which is why the Social Democrats in Germany take a hard line against the pro Leninist Communist say the Spartacus and Bavarian People's Republic. Because Lenin had eliminated their Russian peers with violence/death and if the Leninist in Germany achieved power they'd do the same to all other socialist. This was literally a Socialist vs Socialist war.
Yet some how despite this the SPD are often referred to as right wing counter revolutionaries by pro Marxist writers/historians which is just mind blowing. I mean they're Far Right despite being Socialist, and they're Counter Revolutionaries Despite being the first Revolutionary Government after the fall of the Kaiser. Makes you never want to trust a word from a Marxist ever again.
2
-
2
-
@jameshodgson3656 You don't know the chaos of the Inter-War period. Between 1918-1920. Most armies really not much better than armed mobs with uniforms fighting for Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Red Army, etc. Poles were fighting Germans, Ukrainians and Lithuanians. Ukrainians were fighting the white and red Russians, and Poles. List goes on and on. Lets say civilians were not protected, towns were assaulted, everyone wanted to claim as much land for their "New" Nations as they could, a lot of crimes were committed by almost all parties.
Heck fun fact Heins Guderian fought in Lithuania as a Freikorp Volunteer and served with a unit responsible for the murders of many local civilians in the region, despite fighting against the Red Russians, they were also fighting against the Lithuanians. In short, he stained his hands if blood long before Hitler ever came around despite being considered the Father of Mobile Warfare.
2
-
I still find people who deny that the Holodomor happened. They will source many intellectuals, you know the same kind that will release spreadsheets saying how much better the USSR was, but because they're intellectuals and professors, they're CREDIBLE. They will say. They will even cite Albert Einstein who had no way of knowing at the time whether it was true or not.
5:30 I think that is a bit of a stretch, even prior to Hitler being in power there was a lot of foreign investment within Germany itself. Germany was a recovering economy during the 1920s and many investors found it a great opportunity. On top of that the German Government borrowed a lot of money as well for state works projects. Even John Keynes lost his fortune investing in the German Mark which lost him almost everything, yes the great Keynes the founder of Spreadsheet Warrior Economics, didn't know how to read the stockmarket, what a shock. BTW he lost his fortune before hyper inflation happened in Germany invested in German currency, pretty ironic he failed that badly. That being said, Germany saw a huge economic boom in the 20s, and a bust of massive scale by the end of the 20s.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheLocalLt Wrong, Fascism is a Social and Economic system. It replaced the Class Warfare of Marxism, with the unifying force of Nationalism. Unlike the Nazis Fascist believed Nationalism should be used to unite all the Social groups in society with Nationalism, were as Nazism's concept of Nationalism was Racial, so unification was not possible. Ironically, making the Nazis more like Marxist just switching out Classism with Racism. Fascism was an alternative to Marxist Socialism, but in the end it was just a variation of Syndicalism, ie Trade Unionism, ie Fasci (Union/Bundle) Fascism literally means Trade Unionism. It's why the Fascist tried to put all business into state own trade unions (Corporations). It's no different than the Soviet Union's Soviets (Trade Unions owned by the State). Fascist at the time tried to claim they were something absolutely unique and different. While the Nazis perverted the concept of Fascism with their Racism. Both knew common people were terrified of Marxism at the time, so claimed they were something different. But they were just another variation. Since then all Marxist have been in denial trying to find any excuse to claim they were something different as well. But they're more similar than they're all different.
I'd highly suggest looking up the youtuber TIK. I will list the titles of some of his most important videos on this subject. I used to be a Fascist in my Highschool and Collage years, and TIK is just about the only person on youtube which seemed to care to do his homework on the subject. Even George Orwell know Fascism was a Socialist movement if you read his closing pharagraphs in his article "What is Fascism" Quote Below.
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. " < Key part "because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make." This is why he wrote Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell also know if he flat out openly admitted what Fascist were, his Socialist readers would abandon him, so instead he pretty much put it in plain sight in a lot of his post mid 40s works. Tragically Orwell claimed the only definition we have come to for Fascism was "Bully State" < Paraphrased. If you read most definitions of Fascism today, it's still pretty much a Bully State. Which Orwell found unsatisfactory because it was a Social and Economic system, so a Bully State is wrong, and should be rejected, even a democratic state like the USA can be a bully, and both the CCP and USSR have proven Marxist states can be Bully States.
Also Totalitarianism Requires Socialism. State ownership of the Means of Production. Totalitarianism is literally State Controls everything, if you're Totalitarian you're automatically Socialist because the State already controls everything, including the means of Production. Totalitarianism can not exist without State ownership of the Means of Production. So by Defacto, calling Fascist, Totalitarian is admitting they're Socialist.
That being said. Titles of some of TIK's best videos on this subject. These are his most important if you want to understand the concepts of Capitalism, Fascism, Marxism and Nazism.
FASCISM DEFINED by TIK
Public vs Private by TIK
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments by TIK
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2:05 thing about that is, Marx's own words, all Capital is Money. So that Communist definition is comical. As it's not a moneyless society if resources are distributed according to their abilities/need, as all resources are still capital, and in turn Money, and yes Marx literally said all Capital is money. So you can never have a moneyless society. It's a serious contradiction.
This is why I often make the observation that in a Socialist system, even if you abolish money people will still fight over other means of capital. It's why the Chernobyl series was so wonderful, you had three selfish men who wanted promotions, office chairs, and better lives, ie other means of capital who ended up being the protagonist of the story. They were still Capitalist in the Socialist sense.
So say you have no money and said Communist grows potatoes and decides to hide some of those potatoes so they can trade them in the back ally market (black market) for other capital, a bottle of vodka that they then trade to bribe an official to turn a blind eye and smug the numbers convincing someone their farm needs more equipment so he can grow more potatoes. =3
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Scatmanseth Yes but even the Church schemed to destroy entire kingdoms. I mean the 30 Years War was literally divided along religious lines. Mostly done to crush the rise of Protestantism and Lutheranism in Central Europe. Which were a threat to Rome. Basically a Internal European Crusade. Population decline in Central Europe ranged from 30-60% making it one of the most devastating conflicts in European history, borderline genocide, all for the sake of preserving the Catholic Church and it's follower's position of power in the region.
So there were many of the wars against England between France/Spain because the English dared to go against the Church and the Church was the body pushing for those invasion attempts. There was plenty of scheming back then in short. So it wasn't like it couldn't happen today. Church rarely upheld the morals it claimed to stand for, if it risked losing it's centralized control of Europe at large. Definitely during it's golden years when it controlled almost every aspect of society, from education, architecture, art, music and had more power than kings.
I honestly don't care for Nationalism, or Internationalism. To me they're two sides of the same coin. But I do agree, the larger the Community being governed the more complex and less efficient the system eventually becomes. To me the concept of a State is a necessary Evil, and Nationalism has it's uses, works well as a glue to hold people together when necessary, but it shouldn't rule people's lives/decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism offers Security, and Stability for those who have neither, at the cost of Freedom/Individual Liberties. Offers, being promises, though history has shown it rarely achieves those promises. On top of that, People love Socialism because it also promises fairness/equality, at that same cost, and people normally don't realize how much of a cost that is until it's too late. However, for Socialism to ever stand a chance at working it requires giving power to some form of centralized authority to cease land/property/capital/resources, which means stripping civil liberties. But once that body of authority takes power they rarely give it up, and now after all those liberties are gone, citizens now become slaves to that authority. This is where the promise often turns into a nightmare.
As no matter how preachy the socialist is, they're still human. They may not fight for money/capital, but they will fight for an office chair, a higher position of authority for higher benefits. In turn oppression is guaranteed, and I'd argue even if Capital/Money is not involved, you will never rid society of that sense of selfishness that Socialist accuse capitalism to be dominated by, as in a socialist system those selfish tendencies don't disappear, people just find other means to accumulate wealth, stealing from their trade unions, bribing officials with a bottle of vodka, resorting to dealing with Mobsters on the black market to get medicine, and trading other capital to get that medicine. It will never go away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warreneckels4945 Tragically for Marx his ideas do not really factor into real world application. Which is why I often tell people there are pretty much two kinds of Socialist. Dreamers, and Pragmatist.
Dreamers being those who believe in People like Marx as if it's a religion. Then Pragmatist people who actually understand the flaws inherent in socialist doctrine and try to take a more practical approach, because there are serious issues within socialism.
Best example is, Economic Liberalism (ie Capitalism) which leads to greater efficiency, reduced cost, and greater abundance. Which in turn = greater prosperity for the Working Class, and the Poor. So no Revolution. Revolutionary Socialist for almost two hundred years keep spouting it's the dying Days of Capitalism, but then Capitalism never dies, I wonder why? Perhaps because Capitalism isn't actually in crisis as they believe. In fact most of the Violent Revolution that happens in the 1920s was entirely the result of impoverishment brought about by WWI, not Capitalism itself, public States made the people poor by throwing away capital to wage war at the expense of the people. So ironically people were revolting as a result of the public sector states, not the private sector economy the state rides on.
Pragmatist understand this. Which is why Social Democracy is more popular than Socialism itself. Even the Democratic Party of America is technically a Social Democratic Party even if they don't openly admit it. Social Democratic movements believe you can reform the Capitalist system, and turn it into a Welfare State, with a Capitalist Economy to pay for Social Welfare. It sprouted originally from the Marxist movement when Marxism kept failing in Practice in the 19th Century. Many Marxist eventually split from Marxism and started forming their own socialist movements, including Social Democracy and Syndicalism, among many others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johannhawk8471 The Italian Fascist were Syndicalist later turned Corporatist. They believed in the concept of State Owned Trade Unions. Which means economically the Italian Fascist actually have a lot in Common with the "Nordic Model" that modern Leftist advocate is a great system. Again though Politically the Italian Fascist were also against Liberal Democracy, they viewed the modern State, ie the Liberal Democratic State a Capitalist State and were openly hostile toward Capitalism.
The only reason Industrialist were supportive of the Italian Fascist was because they stepped away from Classist Principles of Marxism, and were no longer supportive of the Class Focused Worker's Revolution. Mostly as a result of Mussolini's influence over the Fascist Party which he didn't found btw. Mussolini through his observation during the First World War saw that Nationalism seemed to rally people together far more effectively than Social Class. So started advocating when he was still part of the Communist Party that the party should adopt a Pro-War position and rally the people that way, also hoping the war would weaken the current ruling State in Italy. Eventually Mussolini was kicked out of the Communist Party, and comically Lenin wrote a letter to the Italian Communist Party on how pissed he was that they did that. Because Lenin believed Mussolini was the only Socialist in Italy who had the temperament to launch a Revolution.
When Mussolini took over the Fascist Party (Fasci literally means Bundle and was an Alternative to Union in Italy, the original Fascist Party was an International Anarcho-Syndicalist Party). Mussolini dropped the International Party of the Party's name, and advocated to creating a New Italian National State under Syndicalist principles. Using Nationalism instead of the "Worker's Revolution" as the Glue to hold the movement together. He was very successful as well. he turned against the Worker's Revolution and crushed workers Unions when he brought stability to a very unstable Italy post War. After showing his Black Shirts were doing what the Italian Government was failing to do he marched on Rome and took power. Basically launched a bloodless Revolution, King was still in power but the State that ruled the country was now Mussonlin's.
As the Italian Fascist movement progressed throughout the 20s/30s they eventually switched from National Syndicalism to their own ideas on syndicalism which would be Fascist Syndicalism, which eventually just evolved into the adoption of Corporatism or as Giovanni Gentile stated "The Corporate State" as the State was at the top of all those Corporations. Rather than crushing the Capitalist out right like say what the Bolsheviks did, they forced them into State owned Trade Unions with the promise they could still run their business but now on the State's Behalf, gave the State control while keeping Industrialist some what happy for the most part. This is why the Austrian Fascist of the 1930s were also Corporatist, and so would be the National Socialist Party in Germany. Which is why Business remained mostly intact under their rules and eventual regime collapses, because they were incorporated into the State but not managed by the State. The Nazis used the term Gleichschaltung: Synchronization to describe this process, which business were Nazified so to speak to make sure they were operating for the good of the Nation/People vs the owner's own personal interest, the owner could still operate as long as they toed the line so to speak. That is how they viewed what a Mixed Economy should be.
This is actually why I shake my head when people say these regimes were controlled by Capitalist, when they were literally run by people who believed the State should Monitory/control Capitalist for the good of the Community.
Nazis in particular literally believed Capitalism itself to be J**ish, and were very hostile toward it. They were not hostile toward private property, just hostile toward exploitation of capital in a way that hurt the people.
So in almost all respects. Fascist/Nazis were Socialist. Just not the same kind of Socialist as say a Marxist Revolutionary.
I forgot what book it was, but I remember the author stated "The Nazis were not against Marxist principles, but were against the Marxist movement itself because they believed it was a conspiracy controlled by the J**s." Basically the Nazis believed the J**s were using Capitalism to cause Class Conflict, which in turn they were then using the Classist Revolutionary movement to gain power throughout the world. Basically they believed in a conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
@johannhawk8471 Issue with My Kampfy Chair, he likely lied about his entire time in Bavaria. If he was in the Communist party why would he admit he was willingly?
based on what information is available, he was elected twice into the Communist Party as a representative to his Unit. His unit was Socialist leaning, so he wouldn't of been elected into that position twice if he himself wasn't socialist leaning. When the Freikorp showed up however Hitler insisted that his unit stay out of the fighting though. Which was either a sign he lost faith, wished to preserve the lives of his friends or himself, or was never a die heart supporter but we don't actually know. Being he willingly risked his life later during his Munich Beer Hall Coup, he definitely wasn't a coward so that one can be crossed out.
However he was elected as a representative for his men for the People's State of Bavaria and later the Bavarian Soviet Republic. So not just one government, but two Communist Governments that lasted almost a full year collectively, so it was more than just a month, even if he wasn't a part of it during the entirety.
However, we do know Hitler himself didn't become a spokesmen until he joined the German Worker's Party months after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, a Party that was openly Nationalist, Anti-semitic, Anti-capitalist and Anti-Marxist, yet was Socialist. It already even before Hitler joined it, had all the hallmarks of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
It is very likely that Hitler was a Communist, but changed his views after joining the German Worker's Party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 You're basing you're entire perspective off Marxonian Theory. Socialism isn't Marxism, though Marxism is Socialism. But judging what Socialism is by Marxism is a huge fallacy, and it's one too many make. Socialism predates Marx himself, and Marxism wasn't the only branch of Socialism in the 19th Century. Mikhail Bakunin being a good example, and a huge critic of Marxism who is also the primary foundation for Modern Libertarian Socialist he was also against the idea of the Working Class being the only Class to be part of the Social Revolution meaning it Bakunin's ideas were not exclusive to "Labor" or the "Workers" as well as many none Marxist Socialist.
This means SOCIALISM isn't about the Workers or Labor, only Marxism and branches of Marxism like Syndicalism.
Socialism isn't about the Workers. It's about Common Control, and Common Control is whatever said Socialist movement wants it to be as long as it's Community, or Society in Control, it doesn't have to be about the Workers. In the context of Italian Fascism it was Nationalized Trade Unions in control of the Central State, similar to the Soviet Union.
This is why when saying the Nazis were not Socialist because they were against the Workers is a serious fallacy. I would argue it's a double fallacy as well because they created a State owned Labor Union, they didn't abolish Trade Unions, they Nationalized them in to the German Labour Front (DAF). Which was a single large state owned trade union, and no business could operate in Germany without hiring workers from that Union, which also means they pretty much eliminated Wage slavery by using the state as the State had absolute say on wages, no longer could the employer dictate on the value of the worker.
Similar to when Marxist claim the Nazis were against Welfare because they abolished the welfare state. Which they didn't btw, they Nationalized it. The reason people think they Abolished it was because they closed down all the OLD Weimar Republic and pre-Weimar social programs, but they didn't close them down they turned them over to the Nazi Party. People don't know but the State and the Party were Separate in 1933, it was the Nazi Party ruling the State, but the Nazis wanted absolute power. To have absolute power they closed down most state welfare Programs but then incorporated them directly into the Nazi Party itself as separate entities ie Corporations that the PARTY OWNED and controlled. In short they didn't abolish welfare, they put it under new management, took it from the old State and gave it to the NEW STATE which was the Nazi Party. A none violent revolution as the Nazis would call it. Revolution is a change in government, and most of the Nationalization that went on under the Nazi Regime was called Privatization and Synchronization. Privatization as it was put into the hands of the Party, and Synchronization as those elements that were not put in direct control of the party were made SURE to operate in tangent with the Party's wishes. ie Synchronized.
In turn it's all State Power, State Control. There was no Capitalism in Nazi Germany in Short. Despite the word Privatization being used it was none Private. If the Party is the Private Entity then the Soviet Union was also never Socialist as the Party owned everything as well. In all respects, the Nazis didn't lie to the Workers, they lied to the Capitalist. It's a great example why Marxist live in a backwards reality. It wasn't the end stage of Capitalism, it was the rise of Socialism, but one for a Racial Community not a Worker's Community.
When it comes to Fascism itself, ie Italian or Austrian Fascism to be precise. Which is distinctively different from Nazism. I think it was Giovanni Gentile the Marx of Fascism who called the Capitalist State an Liberal State, and in turn an Aristocratic State. He said this in direct opposition to Capitalism itself. Despite the Italian Fascist used the Monarchy as a Tool, their Intellectuals were devoutly critical to the old Liberal Economic system that Marxist call "Capitalism." They even used the same term Capitalist to describe it. Like Marx he was also a Hegelian, ironically a lot of Socialist intellectuals were. Including Spengler who wrote the book on Preussen Socialism. Interesting enough, Spengler called the Nazis Bolsheviks in disguise after they took power in Germany and turned on the pro private property aspect of Spengler's Preussen Socialism, despite originally supporting them. His last book he ever wrote before he died was in opposition.
If you don't know what Preussen Socialism is, basically through Nationalism everyone would willingly do what is right for the betterment of society and the state, to sum it up. Negating the entire need of a social, or political revolution at all. No need for worker's revolution if business owners treated their workers right, no need for a revolution of the state when everyone in society worked for the betterment of man. He was an ideologue, and foolish romantic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 Last famine to happen under the pre-Soviet era Russia was absolutely dwarfed by the famine of 1919-1921, which itself was dwarfed again by the 1932-1933 famine. You're using a false equivalency fallacy. Unlike the prior two the 1932 and 1933 famine was Deliberate as well. Though some would argue the 1919-1921 one was deliberate as well, being it was also caused by the Red Army looting/stealing from peasants food/grain, as well as waging a direct war against the farmers. Which actually lead to a few small rebellions.
However the 1932-1933 was absolutely without question deliberate. Enough documentation exist to prove so.
Secondly Stalin lived like a king. He was the State, all the wealth of the Soviet Union, was under his fingernail. even if on paper he owned hardly anything, in practice he owned everything.
But you failed to notice the point I was making. Stalin was the State, on paper her owned hardly anything, but in practice he owned everything. What was that his Potsdam trip in 1945, tens of thousands of red army troops acting as escort, multiple armored trains, multiple booze filled saloon cars among those trains. The man knew how to waste the nation's resources on his own behalf.
That being said the fundamental flaw of State Capitalism or the use of the term is still there. Stalin was the State. Your attempt to defend the USSR as not being State Capitalism despite it's exploitation of Capital among it's own people for the ends of the State and it's leaders because of a technicality is why State Capitalism is just stupid. Issue is State Capitalism can be easily applied to all Socialist regimes when looked at critically. Definitely if you use Marx's Definition of Capital, which can mean literally all commodities, which would include a grain of rice, or wheat. Any Accumulation of Capital by way of the central state would in term be State Capitalism and all Socialist regimes are guilty of it. Otherwise they'd never have the capital to trade between other Socialist regimes, or with capitalist regimes.
Also to hammer home a contradiction between Stalin and Hitler. Stalin publicly didn't consider his wealth his, but issue is, nor did Hitler. On Hitler's death he gave almost his entire fortune back to the Party, which most of that fortune came from to begin with. He didn't view it as his. Even his private villa was a gift originally. And Stalin himself also had Villas, of which like Hitler he openly shared with other party officials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627
"Russia today is no way compareable to the Soviet Union"
Actually it is technically better. Russia is one of the biggest exporters of grain and corn, during the USSR the Soviet Union required imports to feed it's people. Economically Russia is stronger in 2010 (Post 2014 F***ed it all up) than it was in 1990. Russians just don't feel it because of how heavily state subsidized living was in the USSR. This can be best explained with how horrifically the Ruble Hyper Inflated in the 1990s. It was already inflated before the 1990s but because of Price Fixing, non one could tell outside of seeing empty store shelves in most towns/cities outside of major cities. Each year post 1991 the Ruble inflated, by 1998 it was like 600-800% less value wise than it was in 1991. 7 years... so something that cost 2-3 rubles say in 1991 cost 600-800 and at times 1000+ Rubles in 1998. Why? Because the Market decided prices now, not the State, and the State lied about what goods were actually valued, and after decades of Currency Inflation, the Ruble was that worthless. It wasn't capitalism, but the failure of socialism that reared it's head in the 90s, as capitalism showed Russians how bad they actually had it in the USSR. Sadly Putin hijacked Russia and it's people will likely never see the economic freedom they deserve, just lies about how good the OLD TIMES were.
" yes challenged it won the space race"
Oh boy, I guess Nazi Germany was the greatest thing ever for having the First women to fly a Helicopter, Rocket aircraft and Jet Aircraft. ya we know Nazi Germany wasn't the greatest. Nor being the first at anything makes something better, definitely when it's something that is a Total Waste, like the Space Race. It was Prestige, as worthless to a nation's economy as the military.
Prestige is Prestige, it's worthless if it doesn't make the citizen's lives better. Examples:
Soviet Space Shuttle Buran. Mericans have it so must we! Can't let them show us up!
Tupolev Tu-144: Basically a soviet clone of the European Concorde, with shitty engines that would require it to get an overhaul almost every time it flew. Great Prestige points though! Monkey See Monkey do.
MiG-23 and Su-24: This one is funny, they wanted to make VERY fast jets, so they copied the American F-4 Phantom's intakes. Right down to the bolt, including the blades used to cut carrier netting despite neither of those aircraft ever being planned to be used on carriers... they didn't know what they were for but assumed they helped it go fast! We Aviation nuts get to have fun making fun of the Soviets for it though.
Examples above on how much the USSR really cared about prestige, so much so they blatantly copied other countries. Even though it didn't really do anything outside of making them look good inwardly.
"supported so much resistance against imperialism"
By invading Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and Hungary (twice). Among other.
Also BTW Backing Rebellions to cause major regime changes around the world to create more Chess Pieces on your Team on the board is Imperialism. So Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, all those Communist uprisings in Central West and Central East Africa. List goes on and on. All Soviet Imperialism. I mean it's not okay when the west does it, but man some how it's okay when the USSR does it.
"great education and health care even on just that shows how it helped its citizens" Yes which is why the USSR had the largest HIV outbreak in European history, because their medical system was SOOOO good that they couldn't afford needles, so would wash/reuse them. Let alone not recording Births as Official until they were 8 weeks old, to deflate the infant mortality rate on paper.
Also about "ZERO" Homeless, it was illegal to be homeless in the Soviet Union. During Lenin/Stalin they fixed this by creating Communal Housing. Post Stalin it was mostly multi generational house holds, and communal housing. By the 1980s despite all the apartments built some people still lived in communal homes with multiple families. You didn't have a choice, you'd be arrested if you dared live outside the Soviet housing system regardless, and forced to live somewhere by force. So homelessness was masked, because unlike say in the USA if it was like the USSR, the police would literally walk into a shanty town and arrest everyone and force them to live in public housing even if it meant having half a dozen people living in a 1-2 bedroom apartment. Not a great solution but it definitely allows the State to claim Zero homelessness because technically there was no homeless.
1
-
@mattysav4627
Yes, Autarky, the goal of all Socialist, including the Nazis. After Stalin's death the USSR pushed toward importing food, and not just food but other consumer goods, and that wouldn't change even up to the collapse of the USSR. So if the Socialist goal was self sufficiency, they failed. Yes Russia post USSR did become economically stronger. Again you don't grasp why, and how because you have socialist rose glasses on.
And yes, there is far more economic freedom in a free market society. You're mixing up economic security with economic freedom, and ignoring economic mobility entirely. I doubt you could own a Ferrari in the Soviet Union, or a 3-4 bedroom home. I doubt you'd be able to buy a $3000 Dollar high performance computer if you lived in the Soviet Union if the USSR still existed and functioned the same way today as it did then either. Sure, you'd get that 1 Bedroom apartment which you'd have to share with other family members. But security isn't prosperity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattysav4627 Just did. Laughed my butt off when he devalued the value of labor when trying to counter argue the variation of the value of a laborer.
However, he is quite wrong. Rarity and Use Values are subservient to the Subjective Theory of Value. Though Rarity and Use effect Value they're still slaves to the subject views of the buyer REGARDLESS. Best example is the Painting example he uses. Just because it's rare does not mean it's valuable. All paintings done by hand are unique and hold the same Rarity no two paints are the same.. but it's still up to the individual's assessment of the Painting that dictates it's value. Something as simple as a name attached, history or even a subtle flaw can have a huge impact on how someone values it. A rusty sword from 2000 years ago might be priceless to one person and scrap metal to another. It's rarity is off the charts, it's historical value is without question, but I know I'd throw it away. Use value suffers the same flaw. The mud example, mud does have a use value, adobe structures for example, yet perhaps some prefers wood? You could sell them mud, but another person who adores the idea of an adobe home would jump on the opportunity. Again Use is Subservient to Subjective.
Then he literally devalued labor value. In an attempt to claim labor time value can easily be calculated, ignoring that even simple jobs like flipping burgers still require skill, and fortitude which can vary greatly from person to person. Making it hard to calculate labor time value. He dumbs it down and dismissed the working man as nonthing more in the modern age as a gear in a machine as if he's never worked a day in his life.... what a joke. There is a reason in my town most people go to the Subway Sandwich shop on the west end of town vs east.... better staff, less f**kups.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madarssvikis7483 Well the issue with the USSR was it's lack of ability to trade. Ruble wasn't exactly considered reliable as a currency outside the USSR as the USSR operated outside the World Market, ie it was a closed economy so no one outside the USSR knew how much a Ruble was worth, though I'd argue those inside the USSR's government likely didn't either because without a market it's hard to tell what anything is worth.
So the USSR had to trade for goods from abroad by other means, means that could be valued outside the USSR. Gold, Silver and Platinum being good examples, either that or other things, weapons, tanks, planes, grain, or general commodities. It's how Pepsi ended up with Submarines which is always a funny but kind of sad story when the State has to pay for Soda pop by issuing payment with Submarines. Heck it wasn't just submarines but other ships as well, Pepsi technically had it's own small naval fleet by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1
-
WWII one is quite annoying. USA in particular was fighting a two front war, well technically a three front war.... well technically a four front war.... well technically a five front war... sorry I'm just remember all the regions/fronts that US Army, Navy and Army Airforce were directly involved in since 1942-45, being the USSR didn't get involved in the war in a big way until 1941 the USA was less than a full year behind the USSR in entering WWII. USA in particular, we were literally fighting all across the world from Alaska to the Pacific, South Pacific to mainland Asia, North Africa, Italy, Western Europe. To say the USA jumped into the war at the last minute so it could wave the Stars and Stripes is insulting. I would never say as an American that the Russians didn't play a big part in WWII, it would be stupid of anyone who would dare to say so. Anyone that says the USA didn't play a big part in the war is an IDIOT, and there is no argument that can say they're not if they think that is the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLocalLt You couldn't be more wrong in TIK's opinion on political spectrums. As he said. Socialism is either on the Far Right of the Political Spectrum or the Far Left, where ever Hitler goes, so does Socialism. He doesn't actually care if it's left wing or right wing in short. He just uses the terms because people conditioned to adhere to them.
You're also wrong on the concept of Left and Right wing Politics. Liberalism has always been about individual freedom from OTHERS. Which means all collectivist movements are by nature inherently anti liberal, and shouldn't be considered left wing. Which includes, Religion, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and Nazism. Issue is many of these groups hijacked the Term Liberal for themselves. Liberalism is about the Individual Rights over the Greater Group. Whether it's Religious Freedom, Right to own land, property, business, freedom to believe what you want to belief, be who you want to be. All Collectivist movements are anti liberal, because you're almost always forced to adhere to the social collective. Anyone outside of it was removed.
If you do not believe me, ask what happens to someone in China who says something bad about the CCP? What happened to people who refused to hand over their property during the rule of the Soviet Union? There was no freedom of the individual, no real rights of any kind. They were not Liberal, not even in the slightest, even if they tried to pretend to be.
So if the Left are Collectivist, then they're not Liberal. So this means the Left must not be Liberal? Yet we know the right is often not Liberal either. So neither are Liberal?
I honestly don't like the idea of Left or Right wing as a concept to begin with, because obviously there is something terribly wrong with the current political charts.
Lastly, they didn't crush Trade Unions, they nationalized them. Issue is, the Soviet Union nationalized the trade unions under the state as well, heck it's in the name, USSR technically means a Union of Unions in it's simplist iteration. Issue was so was Fascism. Fascism literally means Trade Unionism, ie Power to the Trade Unions, all Trade Unions were Nationalized under the State.
Maybe you should watch his videos instead of condemning them without knowing where he stands exactly.
1
-
@TheLocalLt And if the Marxist took control they wouldn't of also made Totalitarian States? USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia. I think TIK including I see it as Two Competing Bakers, both Bakers, both baking bread, but both hostile because one likes cheese bread and the other wheat, thinking theirs is better, and also fighting over the same customers. Fascist, Nazism, and Marxism are inherently the same thing, when it comes to their core principles, and with only some ideological differences, but in practice, they become the same beast in the end.
As Fascist claim, they're not as extreme as Marxist, but are against Capitalism. The reason Fascist do this is because Fascist believe in Unifying people, not the Worker's Revolution. Using Nationalism to bring the Workers, and their Bosses together under the guidance of the State. It's still Socialism. They're competitors with Marxism, but also still enemies of Capitalism. Hence why I did the Baker Comparison. TIK literally referred to it has a Socialist Civil War that has been going on for decades.
I was a Fascist for over a decade for that very reason. I was pro Socialist, but disliked Social Divides caused by Classist Mentalities and beliefs. Sexist, Feminist, Marxist, Nazis, Religious Zealots. etc Fascism promised the social security of a Socialist system, but without Class division caused by Capitalist selfish interest. Using the Concept of the Good of the Nation above the individual, if say a dirty Capitalist put their interest above the people at it's heart Fascist would strike them down. Basically it was a system no where near as extreme as Marxism, and no where near as terrifying as Nazism. Ironically, out of the Totalitarian systems of the 20/30/40s Fascism was the best of the lot, yet ironically has all the negative stigma. Marxist have even successfully convinced people that Nazism was Fascism, in spite of the fact that Nazism literally goes against one of the fundamentals of Fascism which was using Nationalism to bring together all the social groups within society, because Nazis were Racist, this was an impossibility. If you look at all the Fascist regimes, including Austrian Fascist, they were not Racist, at least not in the way the Nazis were, their concept of Nationalism was different. For a Nazi the Nation was the Race. For a Fascist it's the Nationality, not Ethnicity. It's why Nazism would never work in the USA, yet Fascism could.
However I've since abandoned that way of thinking a long time ago. I'm more of a Constitutional Monarchist, with libertarian leanings when it comes to individual rights. Talk about a dramatic shift.
1
-
1
-
@waltonsmith7210 Bakunin (edit I typed Bukarin as in Bukharin damn their similar names, changed it to Bakunin) a Libertarian Socialist before the term was common place referred to Marxism as a "Cult of the State." When you dig into Marxism, despite promises by say Engels that the State would fade away, the entire ideology is literally Totalitarianism. Marxism and Totalitarianisms are almost inseparable. Dates back to the Communist Manifesto as well. I will list the ten pillars with some commentary below.
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. (All land is the State.)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (To ensure no one makes too much money, shocking that the original goals of Marxism didn't even abolish money.)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (If you die, everything you own goes to the state.)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (If you try to leave the country, the state will confiscate everything you own. If you resist the state, the state will confiscate everything you own, all praise glory to the state which has now enslaved us. You're not even allowed to leave with the clothing on your back.)
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Yummy, State Centralized Banking, which has since become a reality, tragically for most of the world, and I thought Communist were against the idea of money? No, just against the idea of profits. Unless it's the state, the state gets to profit all it wants.)
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. (You can only go where we want you to and all forms of media and communications are in control of the state.)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (State monopoly on construction and economic planning.)
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (You have no choice but to work, you will be forced to join Labor Unions "Labor Armies" and do as the State decrees, sounds like slavery? Regardless.... I bet those kids who think they're communist who say they shouldn't have to work need to read this.)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (State planned communities, with proper agriculture/industrial distribution. ie keep the farms and factories near each other.)
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc (Contradiction, Contradiction, Contradiction. ie Advocates Abolishing Child Labor then Advocates State Guided Child Labor along side their education, so they work and learn at the same time.)
1
-
To be honest, Capitalism really doesn't exist. Literary wise it didn't become a common place word until roughly the 1920s. So for the rest of human civilization it really didn't exist as a concept. Marx created the concept of a capitalist, as we know it today, and he built his idea of the Capitalist off old Christian antisemitic stereotypes. You know, the evil money changer, the evil money hoarder, the one who never works and exploits everyone else for money. These were all old Christian stereotypes built around antisemitism. Worse, Marx even wrote an entire book called "On the J**ish Question" were he tries to shift his follower's mind set into believing "Oh it's just a Coincidence" because at the time some actually noticed his game.
For this reason I've just gotten to the point that I flat out reject the notion of a Capitalist. It's Economic Liberalism, or Free Enterprise, a far more accurate phrase to use than Capitalism. To me the word Capitalism has been stained after reading into it's history, and origins. Even though the word predates Marx himself, his version of the word is the version we use today and it's a dark sinister perversion of the word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well technically you're wrong. Corporations are not examples of Capitalism, but Corporatism. Socialist will say otherwise of course but Corporatism historically is one of Socialism's competitors so of course they will lie about Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of Trade Unionism and was a Moderate less extreme Response to Marxist Syndicalism, and both were born in the 19th Century. There are many forms of Corporations, including State owned Corporations, or Public Owned Corporation. The most common corporation in the world today is Public owned, ie where shares of the company are publicly traded, and just about anyone can buy up shares.
With that being said Corporations forfeit their status as Privately owned business as they're no longer part of the Private Sector. Though they may not be part of the State's Public Sector, when a Corporation forms it creates it's own Public Sector. This is why Corporations are like Mini States within the wider State. This is why Corporations have a CEO/President, why they have Boards that Represent the Share Holders, why they have Committees, Bureaucracy, and many other things associated with the Public Sector. Because they are a Public Sector, just not the Central State's Public Sector which is often the largest in most Societies. It's actually why some people state if you like to know what Socialism is like, work for a Corporation, because essentially they operate relatively the same way.
However, because they're no longer privately owned companies they loosely and arguably don't' fall under the category of Capitalism. As Private Ownership of the Means of Production is the Core Principle of Capitalism that Separates if from say Mercantilism, Socialism, and other Isms that may or may not have a market economy/money.
So what you're hating on is just a form of Trade Unionism, similar to Syndicalism. Just rather than being a Worker Owned Trade Union that owns the factory, it's a Wide proportion of Society who owns the Factory, with some companies ranging from a few hundred to millions of owners. Some Corporations even offer shares of the company to employees, making them Co-owners. Even a CEO is technically just an Employee of the Corporation, paid to manage the company on behalf of the collectivized owners, who can kick them out any time they wish even if they were the original founder of the company.
1
-
1
-
@TheAnnoyedHumanist
1. You're getting Marxism mixed up with Socialism. I don't care what the definition Ushanka Show uses, but Socialism has nothing to do with the Working Class. That is Marxism. Marx primarily started the Class element of Socialism. Prior to Marx Socialism had absolutely nothing to do with CLASS. Utopian Socialist and Bourgeois Socialism (Marx made up the term Bourgeois Socialism to critics specific socialist he didn't like) both Pre-date the Class Theory of history, and the war for the working class that modern Socialist advocate, and neither had anything to do with Class. if anything this means Marxism itself appropriated the Term socialism for themselves even though they didn't invent the concept of Socialism.
2. Society is just a Collective Group. The size doesn't matter. Which is why a Society can literally be as small as a club. So even if a Company is not part of the Public Sector State which I explained, it's still it's own Public Sector, it's own society. So you're fundamentally wrong at understanding what Society means. A Trade Union would be it's own Society within the Greater Society. It has it's own leaders, representatives, and hierarchy. But the Trade Union isn't owned by the Union leader. Same thing as a Corporation. There is no single owner or even family of a Corporation, it's a Collectively owned Company. It doesn't have to be the WORKING CLASS or the "STATE" which you're implying when you say Society.
Key Distinction with Utopian Socialism:
"One key difference between utopian socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopian socialists believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.[3] They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and that their small communities can demonstrate the feasibility of their plan for society.[3] Because of this tendency, utopian socialism was also related to radicalism, a left-wing liberal ideology.[6]"
^ this is actually why Ishay Landa's criticisms of Prussian Socialism by Spengler is actually wrong. He concluded that it had nothing to do with Socialism because it was against Marxist theories, and the working Class, even though Marx came after Utopian Socialism and Spengler's Prussian Socialism was built on Pre-Marx socialist principles. Which actually means Ishay Landa doesn't understand Socialism, and views it through a Marxonian lens, apparently the same way you do.
1
-
Mike Schwinn Ideological excuse is just an excuse. Hitler had always planned to invade the Soviet Union, and it was almost entirely for the sake of resources. He wanted to create Autarky, and the USSR had what he wanted. His obsession with Autarky lead Germany to economic ruin by 1938, which is entirely why he Annexed Austria, almost started war over Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, and eventually Invaded the Soviet Union, the whole time literally on the verge of running out of valued resources including oil. For example when they invaded the Soviet Union, Germany only had a few months of operational fuel left, and they only had around 20 motorized/armored divisions out of like 130 over all divisions, and to achieve that a vast majority of the German Army had no motorized transit at all. It was so horrible that by 1942 the 6th Army literally had to leave some of it's motorized/mechanized battalions behind, as they didn't have the fuel for the few motorized/mechanized Divisions they had in the 6th Army. The German Army in WWII was always few weeks away from being completely out of fuel. The USSR's failure in Finland gave them an excuse, a reason to think they could pull it off, and their goal was always to get Russia's Oil. Getting red of the REDs was just a bonus.
1
-
@TheAsheybabe89 State spending doesn't equal growth. Look up the Socialist Economic Calculation Fallacy. Which dictates that it's impossible to calculate how healthy a socialist economy is, as it doesn't operate under profit, injecting money into the economy doesn't make the economy stronger. Being that most of the money the Nazis were spending was in the military as well, most of those spread sheet numbers was just going back tot he state, not to the people, so the economy was never healthy under the regime in spite of how pretty those numbers were on paper.
Being prices in Nazi Germany were fixed by the state, resources were purchased regardless of price from foreign countries, and material for factories were provided by the state at prices the state demanded, there was no real market, no proper exchange of goods/services that could be calculated with cash/credit to make any possible assessment on how healthy the German economy was under Nazi Germany. This is why they were going bankrupt by 1938 in spite looking healthy on paper. Why Hitler pushed for aggressive expansion in spite their Army/Navy build up programs being slated to be finished by 1945, ie he was jumping the gun because they had no choice anymore, either go to war or face humiliation as the nation collapses from economic failures of the Party itself.
It's the same reason the USSR collapsed out of the blue in with even the CIA being caught unaware. Supposedly being a paradise on Earth touted by Socialist for decades leading up to it's collapse that some how provided great luxury to it's citizens who couldn't even find food on the store shelves despite what "NUMBERS" on a spread sheet said. Those numbers were never right, and because the USSR suffered horrific inflation + price/wage fixes instituted by the state, it masked how unhealthy the economy actually was, which is exactly what happened to Nazi Germany.
Excessive state spending, combined with state price fixes, wage fixes, regulation, massive inflation which the Nazis masked with MEFO bills, yes they created a fake currency so they could appropriate cash from it's citizens so it could spend more, it was a dramatic attempt to limit inflation. After Hitler's fired Schact just about the only guy keeping their economy afloat ie even came up with the MEFO bill plan, it utterly fell apart rapidly.
Issue is Socialist economic calculation looks good only on a Spread Sheet, but it's all numbers made up by pencil pushers who work for the state using worthless monopoly money that often holds no real value.
This is why I make fun of Socialist denialist who praise Nazi Germany's economy, or the Soviet Union's economy as Spread Sheet Warriors.
1
-
@tolik5929 I place Tucker Carlson in the same category as Charles Lindbergh from the 1930/40s. You may think he is trying to give an 'honest' opinion, letting Americans see a different perspective on 'reality.' But the issue being, that isn't really the case with this subject.
I can be brutally blunt. For people who know what's going on, what Tucker has done is horrifying. There are plenty of Americans who are ignorant on the subject of the Russo-Ukraine War. But Tucker didn't do a g*d damn thing to inform people. If anything his actions are just harmful. He likely knows it as well.
Hence my Charles Lindbergh comparison. Lindbergh was one of the lead members of the America First Organization that sprouted up late in the 1930s and spent much of their time trying to keep the USA out of what was at the time another European War, should listen to some of his speeches that are on audio they're tear jerking.... Issue is Lindbergh wasn't doing this for sincere. He had close ties, and relationships with many in the American Nazi Party, knew a number of high ranking members of the Luftwaffe including visiting Herman Goering a number of times at his personal estates. His reasoning behind well "Promoting" Peace and Putting America's interest first was entirely for self interested political reasons, and had little to do with what was right or wrong. Tucker is in the same category. Otherwise he wouldn't go out of his way trying to undermined the war effort. Could you imagine someone doing this during the early years of WWII going to Nazi Germany? It's weird to be honest that so many in the USA are not looking down upon his actions.
I think it has more to do with want to be true vs what is best for America or Ukraine in this matter. I've been watching politics in this region since the Orange Revolution, and Russia is without a doubt 100% in the wrong with this war. Being since the early 2000s Russia has invaded 3 neighboring countries, and one of them twice now. It's literally a history repeats scenario of Appeasement leading to an overly aggressive D_ck thinking he can get away with whatever he wants because he viewed the west as being pathetic/weak, and now is having to eat his shoes. I mean you can literally compare the Minsk Agreement with the Munich Betrayal and like Hitler, Putin decided to try to occupy the rest of the country he had already invaded because he believed the west was spineless. The international community should stay firm on this war.
So no one in the west should be wanting this war to end in any way other than Putin pulling out of Ukraine entirely. He can not be allowed to even have a Political Victory in this scenario after all he's already gotten away with over the years. If Ukraine wishes to resist, and keep resisting and resisting is up to THEM not US, we should support them.
1
-
1
-
@leonamvonborowsky7559 To be honest that isn't exactly correct. It's a Facade.
They do it to calm the populous and nothing more. So many Chinese citizens have shown footage of just how staged China's response to social unrest is ie, they fake solidarity, with actors, and staged events showing how good of a job they are doing "not" actually fixing the issues the people are complaining about.
For example last years heavy flooding, they literally brought film crews showing the emergency personnel being heroic, but the people they were rescuing were actors, and the whole event they filmed of them rescuing people was that, staged. Meanwhile thousands of people in China died last year from flooding, and the response by the authority was terrible at best. But they created a facade publicly that they were doing a "Good Job" meanwhile the government lied heavily about the death tolls and how much damage the floods actually caused, and how good the government response to the floods etc etc etc.
Favorite ones are when they get water hoses out so make it look like it was storming when filming one of them. Basically they STILL CARE more about their IMAGE than the people they're supposed to be serving.
China's modern strategy has nothing to do with solidarity but basically creating a facade of actually helping. Basically convince the people they're on top of everything so they have no reason to riot. When they do riot, join the riot and pretend you care.
They learned from how bad the PR was from a specific college student protest that eventually turned into a riot which sadly you can not always mention without worry of censorship. So now the CCP has become a master at facades.. hopefully to trick the people into think everything is swell.
Heck I remember one tunnel that flooded last year they pulled hundreds of vehicles out of it, and it flooded so fast no one had a chance to get out of the tunnel. Totally didn't happen according to the CCP.
1
-
1
-
@UshankaShow It's a world where manual labor doesn't exist, and money doesn't exist, and people are left to well do pretty much what they want as long as it isn't harming other people of course. Also things like smoking, alcohol, meat and many other things are illegal, they have synthetic imitations of all of it. Basically a 70/80s Socialist wet dream Utopian Scenario.
So glad that the writer for Star Trek Deep Space 9 kind of crapped all over the Utopian vision of the previous shows, but Deep Space Nine became one of the most beloved series of the franchise. They even brought money back in that series because none all the alien races viewed the world the same as the "Federation" did so the crew on Deep Space Nine had to have money to deal with/trade on the Space Station.
Basically where the original 60s era TV series was a Space Submarine Exploration series. The 80s era Next Generation TV series was Socialist Utopian Dream scenario, with the crew living on a ship which the ship provided them with everything they could want and what work was done was voluntary work for self fulfillment or duty to the crew and their missions. laughs
So so glad Deep Space Nine came along. I liked the original 60s era TV show, but man Next Generation was so... unrealistic/unbelievable, so happy go lucky sunshine/rainbows it made me despise it. I was born in the 80s and I even hated Next Generation. I did like the movies based off Next Generation though just not the TV show. Deep Space Nine added some reality/grit that the Next Generation series so badly lacked. Technology often didn't work, people had to get their hands dirty a lot, manual labor was necessary, rage inducing to a point a drink at the local pub on the space Station was almost required. It threw out that Utopian nonsense for reality.
1