Comments by "NotYourFox" (@notyourfox) on ""If you ain't been called a red" - American Communist Song (by @MonsieurJack95)" video.
-
47
-
@tacticaloil6196 I thought you'd understand based on your... close relation to USSR, let me recap in English.
I said, that your opinion is very biased in this case. I'd say that the majority there really DID like the USSR in one way or another. USSR was not an ideal example of a communist state, yes, and nobody will ever forget those who were truly innocent, but still repressed for some reason, or the mistakes and blunders in Soviet radical reforms (though it's very hard to make it perfect and without any blunders), but that does not make communist ideology in general a taboo just because of the way USSR went. It is a bitter experience and a harsh lesson for the followers of communist ideas. We should dig deeper into it, find the ways to avoid those mistakes, and never make them again.
But we should not forget about the pros of the USSR, and the real scale of the incidents should be known to avoid falling into the nets of propaganda or some idiotic takes like "3 bil. kids eaten by Stalin himself" (a hyperbolic take, which, I believe, is mostly local to Russians and originated there as a satire to fake stats and also Solzhenitsyn's writings)
It collapsed because of political intrigue. There was a referendum, in which the question was something similar to "do you wish for USSR to be preserved as the Union of Sovereign States ...". The point is, that the question could be interpreted in two controversial ways. But like 75% answered positive to the statement of preservation. But still there was an August putsch, and shooting of the Supreme Council, which was essentially a finalization of a coup d'etat, or a bourgeoisie-supported counterrevolution in a destabilized country. But never because of the "people's hate". The reactionary anti-communist propaganda, the promotion of national values and following amplification of reactionary nationalism was the thing that really gave rise to most of the today's hate. Still, I'm not saying that there was no hate beforehand, but it was not that big and radical of a hate.
12
-
@tacticaloil6196 You meant ex-eastern bloc then. Not ex-USSR. Modern Eastern Poland was a part of USSR only in 1939-41. That's why I got confused with your statements.
Oh, so USSR started ww2? Not even the German nazis? That's what you're being taught nowadays?
Polish were the ones who initiated the 1920 war. Nobody asked them to stop communism. And they did not let Soviets aid the Czechs in 1939, that was one of the reasons Stalin signed Molotov-Ribbentrop and agreed to split Poland with USSR.
Would you rather live under nazi rule? Seems like you're portraying them as the good guys, I'm now kinda suspicious of your views...
Oh, so your take here is that "literally every person of Ukraine voluntarily joined Wehrmacht". At least that is what your words say. That is completely delusional. There was a certain amount of defectors, much like in literally every human war. So that does not say anything.
I have already told, explained in finest detail and argued everything about USSR's collapse. I have answered your take on that "USSR collapsed because of the hate". But yet you have just said the same exact thing the second time. Seems like you just soak your propaganda and don't even know any details on USSR collapse.
You are a type of a person who would escalate any disagreement to an absolute. I've already told you my opinion on USSR, and I know that USSR is not "a wonderland". But you seem to just have a strong bias of "USSR = bad" and you hyperreact to even a little disagreement on that. It can be seen by your takes and your words which have been said without a single thought on them.
You are taking your opinion, your views and your perception of the reality and trying to define the reality using only those 3 things. That's not how analysis works. I always present my takes only when they are backed up by some concrete source. Exempli gratia: why do I think that most people did not hate the Soviet Union? Because I have a source on that - referendum results, some statistics from our days, and I have dug several times into the actual history of the USSR collapse, from which I can conclude that the main reason was a political intrigue. I can provide the sources if you are too curious, but I really hope you know at least something and not everything will be a novelty for you. Hopefully.
Have YOU actually lived in USSR? I suppose not. Me neither, but I do my research. So should you. Seriously, learn something, if you will continue backing your reasoning up only with arguments you just came up with in the process, you won't ever prove anything to anybody. And even if your opponent is wrong, you won't be able to correctly point it out, because you can't disprove. And you'll just be... wronger? than your opponent may be.
12
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
@tacticaloil6196 ну да, те самые байки про "половина страны сидела, половина охраняла". У тебя слишком предвзятое и навязанное мнение. Да, СССР был вообще не идеален, от слова совсем, никто не забудет по-настоящему невинных репрессированных, или те происшествия и ошибки в проведении радикальных реформ (которые очень легко допустить(, но это не делает из коммунистической идеи табу, а является очень неприятным и больным историческим уроком для последователей. Потому не очень люблю, когда люди говорят про то, что они хотят вернуть СССР. Возможно, кто-то подразумевает под этим возвращение идей коммунизма в Россию, что прекрасно, но я считаю, что нам не нужно повторять ошибки СССР. Но при этом нельзя забывать про плюсы СССР, и надо понимать реальный масштаб каких либо происшествий или неприятностей, дабы не поддаваться лживой пропаганде или идиотским выдумкам вроде "трёх миллиардов детей, съеденных лично Сталиным" (гипербола).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
@tacticaloil6196
1. It seems like you are the person who should be reminded that nazis are bad, because you have been portraying them there as better ones. Maybe just my misunderstanding though.
2. Soviets had been helping Germans only since August 1939. Not a long time before September 1st. So no, Soviets did not help that much.
3. Apparently you can't properly choose your words or love to exaggerate everything, cause you said literally "ukrainians joined the nazis". I might put the blame on your language barrier there, but "ukrainians joined the nazis" and "ukrainians were joining the nazis" are sentences with completely different meanings.
4. Some Americans, for example, hate the way US currently lives, which does not make US lose it's influence.
5. It's incomparable to the reich and I can provide another list on why was it much better and just what were the pros and nice things in the USSR.
6. Your "valid point" is, as I said, based on your own subjective opinion. Subjective opinions do not define the reality, and do not tell the truth, so I have an option to discredit.
7. Like nobody but the Soviets did exploit their puppet's resources.
8. I completely understand your "Soviet = bad" bias and completely disagree. It is you who do not understand my opinion. You think that I portray USSR as some kind of heaven, but no, I'm literally telling you in clear English just that although there were many bad things there were many good things, that Soviets were good in some way and that they have provided a lot of good things for their people. USSR was harsh and far from ideal, but not a prison and not a devil's lair, as you portray it, denying everything good that Soviets have done. I'm just encouraging you to throw your biased absolutism "ussr = bad" away.
9. You did not prove anything nor you have even stated anything in your reply that made even a tiny bit of sense in terms of proving that Soviets were bad.
10. To conclude, you have just proven the fact, that you are not even trying to understand your opponent's view and bias. And you have proven my words on that facing even the tiniest disagreement you escalate everything to an absolute, deny everything that was said by your opponent about himself and portray your opponent however you like to (of course, as an absolute figure of absolute bad). Or, tldr, "dude thinks that soviets were not the worst thing in the world and they did something good? well, he certainly is a 1 year old Soviet patriot who knows nothing!"
P.S. that's the point, man, we were initially talking about whether or not people hated or loved the USSR, and I have reasoned my take on that it was not hated referencing known sources. Then you escalated it to a relative, but different topic, whether USSR was bad in general, AFTER i have said everything on the initial topic, and of course "people liked it" is not sufficient there anymore, but it was sufficient initially. So your "you just said that people liked it and that is your only argument" which was said after the things were escalated is an idiotic attempt to manipulate the dialogue.
6
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@tacticaloil6196
2. The only thing they had between them is the credit agreement of 1935. Which is not "soviets helping germans to rearm" in any way whatsoever. And Soviets did not play a turning role in that war. Germans were armed enough to crush Poland by itself.
3. Your take, your source: prove that there were mass desertions of Ukrainian soldiers to the nazis. You have not proven anything and just said "some ukrainians fled to the nazis so soviet=bad". We are not simplifying anything here. You give a take, you prove its exact wording.
4. Ukraine was a rightful part of the USSR, and it was a part of the Russian Empire before, though during the Soviet period they were formalized as a full-fledged soviet socialist republic integrated in the Union. Some people wanted sovereignity, some people would rather stay with the Soviets, what's wrong with that? It's just dumb to think "well the only thing all ukrainians wanted is freedom and bad cruel soviets was not letting them go". USSR did invade Ukraine once, when during the revolution they had broken away, and declared Bolsheviks as their rivals, but it was a completely sensible war with the casus of reclamation of the territories lost literally half a year ago.
5. You seem, first of all, to forget, that every country have done such things, of course, to a various extent, in the 20th century. E. g. have you read "political repression in modern America" by R. J. Goldstein? I think not. Second of all, you do not really seem to understand the amount of novelties in social progress that was made by Bolsheviks. And you seem to exaggerate the cons and level out all the serious advantages by saying "yeah, there were pros".
"communism=ussr and ussr=communism" always spells "i don't know and don't want to learn shit about the topic of communism"
And I HELL would love to argue that capitalism throughout it's history was FAR worse than even the Soviet crimes. Left-aligned capitalism is nothing but capitalism with a mask on. And I can give you a list of crimes commited by those "democratic moderate capitalist states".
and again, far-left != political dictatorship and political dictatorship != far-left
6. Wow, the whole part of history of KPD, SPD, German class war was thrown away. Like, also, if there was nazi Germany, does that also mean that they did not want any democratic westerners in their country? 🤔
two people can play this game. And propaganda is not a thing anymore, eh?...
In West Germany there also was armed suppression and garrisons. So now western Germans should not be liking the West? Shortly, a stupid take.
7. Mmm, so every country does exploit its sattelites for their own good, especially in context of a potential world war where everything will be put onto the metropoly so it needs to be developed enough (this applies not only to USSR), but we will blame USSR (and only USSR!) for doing common sense things in terms of that context. That's delusional to think like "well communists want equality so if they come they will instantly build communism and equality and there will be no exceptions to that". That's pure idealism I see there.
Again, former Allied leaders had done the same exact thing, why there's no hate for them? no anti-democracy? oh, I know why, there's a thing called "propaganda". And the winner can make the most out of it. And if the Soviets won, there would be total pro-communist pro-Soviet propaganda, as there is total pro-capitalist anti-Soviet propaganda nowadays. Common sense.
Again, the take on "communism bad because human greed" was already debunked by fellow communists a million times. Either you learn the thing, from ALL the perspectives, or don't make any takes based on the thing.
8. My position always remained the same. It is that USSR was not good overall, but it was good and tried to be good for a great number of people who lived in it. It is you who have changed the topic from "did people like the USSR" to a more broad one "was USSR good or bad". And you are portraying USSR as the devil's lair there, your take on it's pros is literally "there were some but they are insignificant in comparison to the cons". And I'm proving you wrong, AFAICS kinda more successful than you are trying to disprove me.
The "lucky few"? More like "the unlucky few got cursed by the Soviets". There were 1.1 mil overall direct deaths, 4 mil into GULAGs, 6 mil casualties from the famine (and I probably have to explicitly state here that it was not artificial, however, the amount of casualties could've been just a bit smaller in an ideal world where Bolsheviks are 100% competent) + ~500k repressed by other motives. Those numbers are HUGE (and I really dislike Stalin for the fact that there are innocent people in those numbers), but that was not "the majority". Hence, your statement "communists were those lucky few who have benefitted from the USSR" is completely idiotic and wrong in it's every word. It's pretty much the opposite as a good portion of people in those numbers were active forms of what is very much the opposite of "communist". And they were the overall minority. So, no. The majority was fine with the USSR and there were a lot of commited communists who were not "decieved by Stalin" or something similar to a stupid take like that one.
10. Nope, your quote " I bet ur some Russian kid that loves the USSR because u got indoctrinated into liking it or just have some weird patriotism about the USSR." and your quote "Just accept the fact the USSR wasn't a fucking wonderland" spells that you clearly do not understand shit about my overall view on USSR.
I have pretty much explained to you that they were not shit, however, I did not provide any explicit reference to the pros, because I was busy arguing about the real scale and adequate perception of the cons (and, sorry for offense, but you don't have one of those) with you. And I will, if you don't believe me, illustrate all the pros and concretely prove that the cons do not outweigh them. And I'm not ONLY talking about it's ECONOMICAL growth, but also about the huge SOCIAL advancements that were made during the Soviet period by Soviets, which also had become a lesson for the bourgeoisie and a sign that they should integrate similar things to prevent revolutions. We have your favorite "left-aligned capitalism" only thanks to the communist revolutionaries. Because no pro-capitalist reformist will do any reforms if he sees that people do not demand any and there is no better option in one way or another.
My whole antithesis was that "USSR was not the best thing, but not a devil's lair in any way". But you are just denying the real weight of it's pros and denying everything that contradicts with your view on "ussr = bad". Your quote "i'm not saying that USSR was the worst" makes no sense in this case, as you still say, quote: "it is shit". Also, you have made an attempt to level everything in pros list out by saying, quote: "[communism is an] ideology that is based on murder,theft,rape and violence". No, it's not. No, Soviet policies were not based on that. All the cons were side-effects of Stalin's tyranny and right-wing reaction.
In my very first reply I have stated, that I'm not a USSR fan, and I have explicitly stated that for me, as for many modern communists, USSR was a logical and a nice attempt on flipping to socialism, but it became flawed since Stalin and his wrongdoings; then Khrushev with his bad reforms, and so on, and that the flaws should become a lesson to the future communists. That's my whole point.
You are matching USSR and communist ideology as the same terms, which is also completely wrong. Again, USSR was not the best place and it had not the best history. But it had tried to pursue a good and progressive ideology, which, by itself, is FAR better than capitalism is. Capitalism, by the way, also did not secure its place in the world instantly after it's theorization, and there were a lot of harsh things and flaws in early capitalist countries like there were in early socialist countries. That's why it's incorrect to think that "ussr collapsed = communism failed = communism bad and completely untenable.
So I don't like the USSR overall, but I know that it was a good start. Let's say it like so.
Last, but not least, Russia had pursued only imperialist ambitions after USSR's collapse, talking about its expansionism. Russian government did not ever want to restore the Soviet, they wanted to subjugate the former USSR countries, as any reactionary imperialist capitalist government does. Either forcefully or economically - the latter is better, but still, there's not much of a difference.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jason59k55
1. Dear fellow materialist, materialism is "the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.". How does calling Juche a "party dictatorship" contradicts... materialism?
2. Party has many relations to the said proletariat in political sense. Furthermore, party, as the face of the government, in centralized planned economic systems too, has many relations to the means of production not because they own the means, but because they take the output of said means. Centralized planning implies that the government fully regulates the economy: production, prices, distribution, etc. Bourgeoisie as a class under capitalism owns the means and the labor, hence, owns the output, but isn't it right that when government fully owns the output then it kinda owns the means and the labor, maybe not de-jure, but de-facto?
Also, corrupt governmental institutions can in a way broaden the wealth gap and provide less for the people, who should in theory be the rightful rulers of a state, if not the world. That's what Korea has now. They still don't quite fit into the definition of a class, but their higher officials start to function almost like a class. And tell me, when there is de-facto the same inequality with or without having the proletariat in charge (de-jure), is there any difference in what it is: bourgeoisie or "communist" party? THAT is what I mean by talking about "party dictatorship".
3. Theory and practice are different things. I, as a Marxist (scary words for you, huh?), endorse most of the things written in classical and Leninist theories. But I'm strongly against the practice which almost ruined everything.
Also Lenin literally stated that a "leading role of the Communist Party" (quote) should be established. Source: his statement in Newspaper "Pravda" of Jan 21, 1921.
Also article 126 of the Soviet Constitution: "The most active and conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and working intelligentsia voluntarily unite into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is the vanguard of workers in their struggle to build a communist society and REPRESENTS THE LEADING CORE OF ALL ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS, BOTH PUBLIC AND STATE" (google translated from Russian, was too lazy to manually translate, sorry).
Stop saying that I don't know stuff when you haven't even tried to do your research. No, I'm not a liberal (stop ffs seeing and seeking enemies in every single person), I oppose totalism because, as can be seen in PRACTICE, it usually leads to what was said in section 2. Again, I endorse more of a classical Marxist/Leninist view of socialism. And if you have a system where the majority has the economic power, maybe give them just a little bit more political power? Might help them realize the first thing and will probably help in avoiding the "Dizziness with Success" issues (right, comrade Stalin?)!
1
-
@jason59k55
Dialectical materialism is materialism + dialectics. "As a materialist philosophy, Marxist dialectics emphasizes the importance of real-world conditions and the presence of functional contradictions within and among social relations, which derive from, but are not limited to, the contradictions that occur in social class, labour economics, and socioeconomic interactions.[3] Within Marxism, a contradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose each other, leading to mutual development."
Dialectical materialism is based on mechanical materialism with dialectical casing. Follow along the rest of the text and you will hopefully get that I'm not contradicting dialectics in any way. (and I'm not contradicting the materialist base of dialectical materialism either).
The thing is, that not everywhere "class uses the party" applies. Again, in PRACTICE. In totalist countries I specified it is more like "party uses the class". There is a difference when party organizes the class (which should be by Marxism), and when party literally defines the state (that's why I put an equal sign between party and the state talking about Juche, because their totalism had reached this point a long time ago).
Dialectical materialists would say that Korea as a state is formed by proletariat as a main class, which is true (don't see a lot of capitalism in there!), but the said proletariat has ABSOLUTELY NO REAL POWER. Instead, party has. And their priviliged officials. That is how an institution starts functioning like a class. If you want to say so, there will be bourgeoisie applying itself to the party. I'd rather say that bourgeoisie recreates and re-establishes itself through said party, creating something similar to the bourgeoisie dictatorship with bourgeoisie completely integrated in the party... party dictatorship.
In 3. I made a different kind of pun 'cause you are scared of me considering myself a Marxist. You can disagree with that, but that won't change anything: being gives rise to consciousness. And the thing we are doing here is that we analyze our contradictions by opposing eachother for mutual development... sounds familiar, isn't it? Dialectical materialist analysis! You should've understood that our conversation is exactly that. Maybe you'll think twice before doubting my materialistic views. And please, don't try proving me wrong, but follow the process of the analysis.
Yes, you are completely right on that theory leads practice and practice redefines theory. I never disagreed with you on that nor stated that it's false. But I want to point out that there is also BAD practice, to which the theory should react in an opposite way. And I've stated why Juche is bad practice. Either Juche should redefine their own theory at least a little bit so that it won't guide the theory into bad practice, or Marxism should take a lesson from such a bad practice and redefine the theory for this to not be repeated again. By doing the bourgeoisie establishment in the party (in practice), Juche literally contradicts Marxism. Also there is China, who went with socialist market economy, which is also contradictory. Therefore, dialectical analysis should be applied to both situations in such way that either those theories split paths, or those theories come closer together and converge. This is also about analyzing contradictions for mutual development. In either way.
Again, not trying to prove you wrong, but to encourage you to explain your words. Because you stated that marxists never had said anything about establishing party control, and here it is. The truth is that I'm not against having a party as a leading role to realize and implement the power of the proletariat. I'm against bad practice and bad theory created from such practice in those terms. When, again, bourgeoisie elements start applying into the party and it grows into what I call there "party dictatorship". That's the DANGER of the leading role of the party and centralized systems, but that can be avoided and should be avoided. Redefinition will also have to take place there.
Actually, I just remembered, Trotsky with his permanent revolution ideas said something along the lines that theory should always be modified with respect to the practice and time. IMO he's completely right there.
For your conclusion:
I've provided an example of class-based dialectical materialist analysis which implies the possible existence of a party dictatorship by defining it as "bourgeoisie dictatorship integrated into the party" (I was trying to say that the whole time, you kinda helped me with my wording there)
"Oppose book worship" is actually what I'm currently reading (starting not so long ago), and I've read Stalin's work on materialism (which is essentialy the summarization of what the theorists before Stalin said about the topic), I've also read "On Authority", and speaking of that, there's literally a quote "All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.". That's why I'm not against authoritarianism: it is NECESSARY in every revolution and it will become rudimentary... just if it doesn't become a "party dictatorship" which will just ruin everything... that's why I'm FOR LIMITING the authority to avoid putting it BEFORE THE RULE of the proletariat itself, with bourgeoisie elements integrating into the party.
1
-
1