Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "USHANKA SHOW"
channel.
-
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