did the kulaks deserve it?

>>3321483
>did the kulaks deserve it?
Yes.

>>3321483

You forgot the part where the Soviet State caused the famine in the first place.

>>3321483
Commies are monsters

>>3321483
tankie as i am the kulaks were just a bogeyman to distract and divide the peasants against themselves and make them easier for the soviets to rule. they did totally burn their grain but this wasnt a huge portion of teh soviet unions grain supply. the real reason for the famine was sparrows.

>>3321483
Kulaks were hated even after the February revolution, they are even mentioned in Russia´s republic anthem.
Btw that thing about burning the food is true, American propaganda even praised them for that, search for comics "Godless communism"

Starving peasant: why isn't there any grain mr state?
Stalin: uh the kulaks burned it all! Yeah!

>>3321570
Stalin: Kulak, give us your food, we have to redistribute it to prevent starvation and to increase our industrial production
Kulak: *burns food*
*dies*
Liberal teen: STalin killed 20 milion innocent kulaks!

File: 3bcd02fde99a091477ca6530756728e6cc588d1dfc83fbba3f7fddfaafc667ba.jpg (41KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x800px

>>3321643
>This is the level of historical knowledge the left has

File: bolsheviks_hate_farmers.png (469KB, 1600x1332px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1600x1332px

>>3321643
>>3321517
Why commies likes to hate farmers so much? is because they hate food too?

>>3321643
I am a bit of a tankie, but I don't fall in that kind of meme.
The kulaks never burn their crops, this is just soviet propaganda. Starvation is just daily routine in Russia and was accentuated by the incompetence of the state that rejected the responsibility on the kulaks.

>>3321560

Burning food to prevent the enemy from taking it is a time-honored Russian tradition.

File: true_red_pill.png (549KB, 802x718px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 802x718px

/his/ needs to take the tankie pill. Seems like Stalin did nothing wrong after all.

>>3321657
Food is the enemy of the proles

>>3321483
Yes the kulaks made the famine worse by hoarding grain, they were not decent people.

File: treasure2_0031.jpg (142KB, 710x919px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 710x919px

>>3321657
Iam Fascis, but Stalin was a great man that saved the world from communism and Judeohitlerism
>>3321661
Its literally American propaganda

>>3321694
>Im fascist
>support Stalin

What? you are a "nazbol" meme

>>3321704
No, Stalin saved my people and killed Trotskist communist that wanted to create culturless society.

File: maniac_laught.gif (2MB, 256x196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x196px

>>3321694
>Stalin was a great man that saved the world from communism

hahahahahahahaha

>>3321735
He purged all the Jewrmanians that wanted to spread the revolution

>>3321784
This is why you are a nazbol. I bet you are the anon who hate the rothschild so much, and also support north korea and commie romania in other threads.

>>3321808
I like Nikolay Ustryalov and i of course support DPKR against the Jewish Americanism, also socialist Romania was perfect state, Ceaușescu´s wife was the only problem.

>>3321712
Please go on

File: kulaks.png (443KB, 654x767px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 654x767px

>>3321483
Why is this even a debated topic? The kulaks definitely deserved it. The latest presidential election in the US is yet another bit of evidence towards the fact that uneducated masses have no concept of how domestic or global economic policy or anything else works for that matter. The masses, tired of obama giving them fucking health insurance and the corrupt left, literally elected a reality TV star known to be obsessed with money and being retarded so that he could put his CEOs in charge of all gov departments for deregulation and bringing back fucking coal jobs.
Its not far fetched that peasants didnt understand collectivization and refused to give up their "hard earned" goods for redistribution amongst themselves. Inadvertently fucking themselves.

>>3322207
>The kulaks definitely deserved it

This is debatable tankie, to Stealin eyes a person who own a family farm is a kulak/enemy too. Also, you seem to hate the proletarian you want to help. If you think those ignored masses deserve to die because don't fit into your meme ideology, then you are as retarded as the nazis you much hate.

>>3321678
>Katyn
>Comnitted by nazis
Uh, what?

File: kulaks2.jpg (430KB, 1412x2417px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1412x2417px

>>3322263
No, you are right anon. It makes total sense to give uneducated working class people control of the government. This is the dumbest arguement that you get from anti-communists. Gee, you guys really look down on the working class. Yeah, they are fucking dumb. That doesnt mean that they deserve to be mistreated. The right often elevates the working class and encourages their hard work all the while cutting their wages and benefits cuz "coroporate taxes are too high," while the company rakes in billions in profits yearly come on bruh. I fight for more opportunity, EDUCATION, fair wages, and workers rights in general. I'm not gonna french kiss them and I am not one of those idiots who thinks the worker is some infallable source of earthy wisdom. As far as meme ideologies go, thats a silly term. Every individual has their own personal ideology, cant be memed. If you are gonna go socialism vs capitalism, both have profoundly affected the world so much so that we can't go back. Neither one is a meme.

File: Leftycuck.jpg (8KB, 208x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x250px

>>3322315
And how you really fight againt the system, with memes and complains? Unless you and your comrades have a organized plan and put in march, your words will mean nothing but victimist angst. What do you do for the coming revolution armchair revolutionry? why porky must fear you?

>>3321483
No you fucking scum

>>3322315
Corporate taxes should be zero

>>3321483
>Did the kulaks deserve it?
About as much as the Jews did.

File: stalinists.png (308KB, 500x326px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 500x326px

>>3321483

>>3322315
>Giving workers control of the means of production is dumb.
So....
Why even be communist in the first place, why not just be capitalist?
Sounds to me like you just want to rob people.

>>3321483
What proportion of Kulaks burned their crops?

We know for certain the grain was taken by the state. We can't be sure every Kulak participated in organized mass grain burnings throughout the country, it seems more like a few isolated events which the Soviets found useful in their propaganda.

>>3321483
They had it coming but Stalin was unnecessarily harsh and harmed a lot of totally innocent people.

>>3322453
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are just populist forms of social democracy that oppose Western imperialism and believe in strict party control.

They don't seek to abolish commodity production or sincerely empower the working class.

Stalin and Khrushchev were hardly more socialist than Jeremy Corbyn.

>>3321657
You'd have to be pretty retarded to be a communist in the first place.
Hating food is just the end result.

File: Stalinists.png (119KB, 500x416px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x416px

>>3322315
>give to uneducated working class people control of the government/MoP is dumb.

So you are not communist then LARPer, this is why tankies/stalinists are cancer, even others socialists hates you.

File: come on.gif (1MB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 291x300px

>>3322416
I never claimed to be a revolutionary. I just answered op's question. How do I "fight the system?" I'm not trying to fight the system, for the most part I like the system. I try to accomplish my goals by setting an example for those around me as I am my own harshest critic. I am active in my community. I support those who think would help my community. I vote in as many elections as I can, not just presidential.

>>3322431
Why? They can afford to pay taxes.

>>3322453
> sounds to me like you just want to rob people
let me guess, you are one of those people that thinks taxation is unlawful theft by th gov. Thats why you relate so hard to the poor kulak. What makes you think I want to rob people? When did I put any stress on personal gain? Did I not just write about how I am trying to make life easier and protect the worker. I already answered your question in the post you responded to and you wonder why I call people dumb. You are the reason. But its ok, I'm trying to get good education more available to you.

>>3322510
Stalinists are just anti-imperialist social democrats

>>3321483
they didn't deserve it

>>3322511
Then you are cinic oportunist, you don't really care about the people problems but using them to feel important, this is why you support an autoritarian collectivist control freak, you desire control other people's lifes to fit them in your worker state.

File: 800px-Bucur_Obor_(1986).jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

>>3321831
>Socialist Romania was a perfect state.
Uh sure thing pal. :)

File: 800px-Ukrainians_en.svg.png (220KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 800x1000px

>>3321483
>Farmers deserve to be killed for being of a certain ethnicity

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

>>3321808
Oh hey, I'm getting recognition on here for telling the truth against the western lies they spread about the DPRK. If I'm getting attacked by the masses, that must mean that I am doing something right by telling a very unpopular truth about these "evil regimes" that the west likes to parrot so much.

>>3322511
>let me guess, you are one of those people that thinks taxation is unlawful theft by th gov.

No, I'm one of those people that resent the idea of a gang of bandits wearing stolen army uniforms holding me up at gunpoint and telling me that my house is now the property of the proletariat.

>What makes you think I want to rob people?
The fact that you're a communist and that's what communists do.

>>3321678
>Great Purge
>started by Yezhov
?????
the Purge started when Yagoda was still in charge of the NKVD, and the first two Moscow Trials happened under him

>>3322513
I keep telling people that there's no difference between social democracy and communism but they refuse to listen.

>omg anon, stop calling Bernie a communist he's just a social democrat, it's totally different!
No.

File: b0jga63vnt1y.jpg (41KB, 720x712px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x712px

>>3321678
>>3321694
>>3322315
>>3322511

File: last supper.jpg (121KB, 1366x738px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1366x738px

>>3322542
> you dont really care, you use them to feel important
How are you this dumb? I care about them as a people and work to make sure they arent abused. You realize you can think someone is dumb and ignorant and try to help them right? You can't even comprehend that someone like me exists so you are trying to justify my altruistic (but really rationally egoistic) intentions with some alterior motive. My only motive is that I believe this will improve the society in which I live, which will benefit my children. You slime seem to think that everyone does things for immediate benefit, well that just shows the problem with your ideology doesnt it. There is nothing wrong with speaking the truth, the working class and the majority of people are quite ignorant. They cannot rule themselves successfully.

> you desire to control other people's lives to fit them in your worker state
Wow this sounds exactly like what Jordan Peterson said on Joe Rogans pod cast today, you unoriginal shit. Peterson hates social marxism because of the SJW left which is irrational. But he is also an individualist and lashes out at communism every chance he gets, he is eager to point out how to be successful as an individual in a society but forgets that society itself requires sacrifice. You are not just living for you when you are part of a group.

File: Lenin2.png (40KB, 756x760px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 756x760px

>>3322510
> even other socialists hate you
yeah there are like 100 forms of socialism, of course they would hate each other

> not a commie cuz means of production to workers
GTFO of here with that grade school tier bullshit. Quoting the most famous line from marx as if you even read the commie manifesto or das kapital....or for that matter anything by lenin, stalin, trotsky, bukharin, adam smith, cherneshevsky, dostoyevsky, tolstoy, robespierre, rousseau, danton, or even thomas paine.
The bolsheviks and to a lesser extent the mensheviks believed that the workers had to be told what to do by a vangaurd of revolutionaries either in the party or by a group of councels. The soviet theroy had its problems, particularly when Lenin mandated party unity leading to a consolidation of power allowing for a dictatorship. Giving the means of production to the workers directly is like direct democracy, it sounds good but it doesnt work. The only person to really try it was Gaddafi. His Jamaharya was quite impressive in the sense that he had multiple councels that would recieve direct votes from his citizens. He had his national arms stores accessible to his citizens for times of crisis. He gave his citizens a percentage of the profits off the nationally opperated businesses. This all sounds great. Until you realize that while they could run a small country in africa, but they unsurprisingly fucked themselves in terms of foreign policy. Sure a gold standard would have increased their economy but guess who would not stand for it, the rest of the world economy! Their easily accessible arms were turned against them by foreign agents. Gaddafi got a knife in the pooper, his oil fields dont bring anyone money, and libya is gonna bea shit hole for at least 30 years.

>>3322609
>Trust me goy, I have your best interests at heart!
No.
Stay the fuck away from my lawnmower, Red.

>>3322609
>Muh individualism is bad
Go live in North Korea then if you really want to live in a (((workers paradise))). Do you commie faggot.

File: squish fascists, get their industrial complex.jpg (103KB, 564x832px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 564x832px

>>3322573
Nice answers guy. I give you explanations and you give me biased sound bytes. You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

>>3322596
Pinochet thought Margaret Thatcher was a good leader. Also pic related.

>>3322666
>You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

Get thee behind me Satan.

File: 1502706614052.png (9KB, 235x236px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 235x236px

>>3322207
>the latest presidential election in the US

ousted yourself right there.

>>3322609
You are a psychopath like all your "heroes" in your pic: "they don't deserve to have control of their lives because they are dumbs" "The things will be better if I and my comrades control the society" "This is for a better future". You are no better than poltard in that regard.

>>3322666
Pinochet literally did nothing wrong.

>>3322666
>my perfectly noble goals

Since when is genocide denial a noble goal?

>>3321678
>Katyn
>Nazis
>Not Soviets

You are absolutely retarded and have got to be the most infuriating kind of person to even the most self-loathing Pole.

File: Soviets.jpg (59KB, 500x1103px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x1103px

>>3322638
Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. The government he built spent the next eighty years being plagued by corruption, infighting, and an absolute infestation of mass-murdering sadists, before finally collapsing. He's the chief reason that Russia (and Eastern Europe as a whole) remains an economic backwater dominated by cronyism and repression. it was Lenin who set up the first Gulags and initiated the first purges of non-bolshevik groups that fought in the revolution. Stalin provides an easy scapegoat for lefties who like communism but cannot defend the horrors of the Soviet Union.

And Lenin knew he was full of shit. Hence why he didn't allow Russia to have a democratic process after the Tzar was killed. He employed dirty politics, intimidation and eventually civil war (3 times) just to subvert any chance of Russia resisting his party. He and his buddies wanted the power instead of someone else having it. It was as simple as that. Their beliefs were completely phony and mostly lies. Hence why the Kronstadt sailors rebelled when they saw what "communism" actually looked like. Of course the Soviets then murdered them

>>3321678
>>3321694
>>3321712
>>3321831
>>3322609
>>3322666
Why are commies such niggers?

>>3322660
classic kulak

>>3322665
> this guy thinks N Korea is communist
bruh
Bruh
BRUH
North Korea hasnt been communist for real since 1960, in 1980 Juche became their official ideology. In 2009 they removed communism from their consititution. Juche was originally described as a "creative application of marxism-leninism" which basically means nor marxism-leninism but we need money from russia and china. It centers around the cult of personality of the Kim family, national self-relaince, and self sufficiency. These are all just words. Analysts say that it is basically just traditional dynastic korean rule in a modern world. Communism does not have dynastic rule. Communism does not have shitty workers rights. Communism does not have class stratification.
This isnt a "not my communism so it isnt communism" arguement. N korea is as communist as the USA if trump just decided to hang red flags everywhere. It isnt. It is a totalitarian monarchy that thrves on nationalism.

File: 1504193498710.jpg (24KB, 184x181px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 184x181px

>>3322666
>Nice answers guy. I give you explanations and you give me biased sound bytes. You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

you literally just asked loaded questions and tagged your phrases with key words to give them the connotation of being so noble in spirit that even debating against them in an organized, objective way would make him seem like an asshole. And now this is like the two of you are in the middle of the race you are trying to discourage him from even trying by saying that you have already won and he inst mentally equipped to handle you because you sophistic capability forced him to reassert his position so that he would jump into all the logical traps you set for him. if you want to argue the "facts" of your supposedly noble goals and positions, you need to support that shit with sources and diagrams and actual evidence, otherwise you are just throwing around mindless conjecture that gets nobody anywhere and we have another "impressionable & arrogant left v. underequiped but passionate right" thread that pops up every fucking day.

>>3322711
>Communism does not have shitty workers rights
We got a comedian over here!

>>3322714
so that he wouldn't* jump into

>>3322711
>not REEL gommunism

File: True_socialism.png (829KB, 576x1500px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 576x1500px

>>3322638
Communism is DEMOCRATIC control of the means are production, If the workers do not have DEMOCRATIC control of the means of production, then this is not communism LARPer. Besides, state capitalism is STILL capitalism.

File: communism.jpg (483KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1920x1280px

>>3322672
primo example

>>3322675
wait do you honestly not believe in government of any kind? Do you want people to just do whatever they want? Are you for real retarded?

>>3322683
Since when did I say genocide was a goal of mine. This is yet another example of shutting down discussion. No one has mentioned genocide at all here.

>>3322706
> took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy
Thats just another way of saying lberating the people from a completely incompitent and parasitic government. The Russia Tsar was one of the richest men in the world, his country was a major power and he still had famines, entered into useless wars, failed to educated the masses, and failed to industrialize at a time when everyone industrialized.
You are wrong about Russia being plagued by corruption, infighting, and infestation of mass murderng sadists. Because all of that was going on under the tsar as well. Russia has a culture of corruption which is seen in its literature from even the late 1700s. Infighting is just as constant. Mass murders did not really happen, but the technology for that was just coming out. The tsar had famines that killed many and he allowed pogroms to occur on his jewish settlers in the east. No to mention the that serfdom only became illegal in 1866! Thats american civil war times folks.
Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.

>>3322709
We got big dicks. Ooba booga where the bourgious women at?

>>3322737
Socialism: DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. It is a transitional state from capitalism to communism. Since communism is unattainable, this dictatorship is indefinite. It lasts forever.

File: Ar12bzZ.jpg (77KB, 700x566px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x566px

>>3322746
Again, a tankie behaving like a nigger. Pure autism under the guise of trying to sound edgy.
>Hurr trust government, freedom is for retards!
Okay so if I give you a free helicopter ride, you won't complain about muh rights and muh oppression then?

>>3322746
Hey LARPer, Communism is a stateless society. When you attempt to seize control of the reigns of the state opportunistic men are going to compete against you. opportunism will undermine your attempt to use the State for good. Also, I don't consider Lenin a real communist because real communism is democratic socialism not "dictatorship of the proletariat". Lenin and Stalin were just malicious men trying to cash in on the centralization of political power.

File: Lenin3.png (483KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1920x1080px

>>3322714
We are debating. This is not the forum for citations and sources. It is too inconvenient. People in this read are expected to be somewhat well read on the subject they are discussing or are trying to learn about it. He is attacking me and I am debating circles around him. Thanks for assessing the situation, but he wouldnt fall into my "logical traps" if he knew what the fuck he was talking about.

>>3322715
The soviet union, cuba, and many other socalist countries have great workers rights records far ahead of what the US had at the time they were mandated. This isnt propoganda, just because there were human rights violations and prison camps, odes not mean the rst of the population did not have very strong workers unions, free healthcare, free education, and housing. If you doubt this, then read about it. Only the asian commie countries completely forgo that whole point of comunism in general.

>>3322720
I literaly addressed specifically that in my comment. You cant use it once I have already used it.

>>3322737
Well its actually either, but I am ok with it being democratically controlled as long as it is a republican democracy. It was you who saying I wasnt really a commie because the workers didnt have the means of production, which technically they due in a republican democracy.

File: When_communism_hits_hard.jpg (78KB, 355x356px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 355x356px

>>3322764
>It lasts forever.

Kek

>>3322773
> LARPer
> communism is a stateless society
> I dont consider lenin to be a real communist
> real communism is democratic socialism

Thats bad bait my friend. You should be ashamed

File: Socdems.png (73KB, 727x462px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 727x462px

>>3322777
What you mean for socialism is just an authoritarian socdem with gunz.

File: 1503960391440.jpg (27KB, 640x638px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x638px

>>3322746
>Thats just another way of saying lberating the people from a completely incompitent and parasitic government.
Relying on the abiguity of language to reduce his argument into semantics.
>The Russia Tsar was one of the richest men in the world, his country was a major power and he still had famines, entered into useless wars, failed to educated the masses, and failed to industrialize at a time when everyone industrialized.
This fails to awnser why a Soviet Revolution, with its famines, usless wars, uneducated masses and failed attempts at revitalizing the economy was in any way a viable solution.
>You are wrong about Russia being plagued by corruption, infighting, and infestation of mass murderng sadists. Because all of that was going on under the tsar as well. Russia has a culture of corruption which is seen in its literature from even the late 1700s.
It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
>The tsar had famines that killed many and he allowed pogroms to occur on his jewish settlers in the east. No to mention the that serfdom only became illegal in 1866! Thats american civil war times folks.
Again, this fails to suffecitiently awnser why a Soviet Revolution was a viable solution to the Tsarist regime, this is mostly just conjecture and you building an emotional appeal.
>Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.
Incredibaly reductionist, and it still supports his assertion that Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. You arent really making any points here, you are just trying to paint Lenin in a more favorable light.

File: comunist_party.jpg (116KB, 636x460px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 636x460px

>>3322764
>Ah yes, the everlasting transition state from capitalism to communism. Enjoy the ride proles.

File: q0bdtmgpinfx.gif (2MB, 1800x996px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1800x996px

>>3322746

>>3322777
>We are debating. This is not the forum for citations and sources.
So there is no point in trying to solidify your argument with sources? It only seems like the logical thing to do if there is solid evidence out there that you are right.
>People in this [th]read are expected to be somewhat well read on the subject they are discussing or are trying to learn about it.
So you just toss the concept of "burden of evidence" aside because you can get away with it on an anonymous forum, knowing there arent any rules for or against this concept. Slipping in between the cracks just because you are anonymous doesn't make you a very great debator, especially when empiracle evidence can be readily found an presented.
>He is attacking me and I am debating circles around him. Thanks for assessing the situation, but he wouldnt fall into my "logical traps" if he knew what the fuck he was talking about.
Again, puting yourself into a race and pretending like you have already won. Just because he isnt an expert on the subject doesnt make him wrong, and using shady dabate tactics to win a debate against people who dont know any better just shines a negative light upon you and puts into question any of the conclusions you make.

>>3322798
I dont mean anything. That just happens to be what I prefer.

>>3322801
>Relying on the abiguity of language to reduce his argument into semantics.
cuz his opening statement was semantics, what do you want from me? Why are you attacking me cuz he's an idiot.
> This fails to awnser why a Soviet Revolution, with its famines, usless wars, uneducated masses and failed attempts at revitalizing the economy was in any way a viable solution.
> The soviet union did have famines, but it should be noted that this was after a long civil war, after two recent famines under the tsar, and under a brand new government under sanctions by the major powers. The only useless was that the USSR had was Afgahnistan. The USSR educated its people from an illeteracy rate of 83% to almost complete literacy. They had some of the top scientists, engineers, and musicians in the world. The education thing is silly, anyone who knows the hx or liveed through the soviety union knows their education was on point. Failed attempts at revitalzing the economy? The 5 year plan set a record that was only just recently broken for the fastet industrial growth. Their economy was doing just fine. Keep in mind that the country went through WWI, the revolutionary/civil war, WWII, was sanctioned by the west and still under stalin managed to have food for the people, maintain a major military force, and compete with the US. Even giving aid to foreign countires. It was only in the 80s that the economy bega slowing down. Capitalist systems have booms and dips whereas socialists systems has a slow steady growth or decline. It is very impressive that they USSR accomplished what it did while competing with the west.
>It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
It is heavly fallicious to imply that I am being fallicious. To be cont.

>>3322801
>>3322899
> It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
It is very pertinent that Russia was corrupt before the USSR, because he was implying that Russia became corrupt due to communist intervention. Russia is still corrupt under capitalist democratic rule. This is not a measure of whether a system is successful or not, when it inherits corruption. I did not move the goal posts, I provided an example to show I wasnt talking out of my ass. You are trying very hard to paint me as some sort of cheat and idk why. My responses are usually pretty comprehensive.
> Again, this fails to suffecitiently awnser why a Soviet Revolution was a viable solution to the Tsarist regime, this is mostly just conjecture and you building an emotional appeal.
Well, why do I have to be the defender of everything the soviet union does in the first place. I am not a stalinist. But to answer your point, my other comments in conjunction with this one do show why the soviet system was preferable to the monarchy. The soviets provided the aforementioned benefits which you so slyly try to write off and most of the problems that they had already existed before hand. My point being that things got better for the vast majority of people under soviet rule, in a way that they would not have under the tsar. Most professors on Russian History would agree with this, there is too much data to say otherwise.
>Incredibaly reductionist, and it still supports his assertion that Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. You arent really making any points here, you are just trying to paint Lenin in a more favorable light.
Idk why you are providing often innacurate analysis of my responses instead of provide responses of your own. Cont...

>>3322933
oh god, 3 posts of this shit? Do i really have to sit and point out the flaws in 3 2000 character posts, digging thru all of your personal attacks, petty anecdotes and appeal to emotions?

File: BASED Hoxha.jpg (76KB, 555x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 555x720px

>>3322737
>the Soviet Union wasn't democratic
begone revisionist

>>3322801
>>3322899
>>3322933
>Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.
I am not here to rewrite history or defend lenin. He was opportunistic as most leaders in history are. Saying he took advantage of the tsars incompetence is a kind way of saying the tsar lost control of his country. Lenin took power from the provisional government not the tsar. The people were dissastified enough to ask the tsar to convert to a constitutional monarchy which he failed to up hold. They were then upset enough to set up a provisional government. The bolsheviks headed by lenin then took power from the provisional government by force because they were going to loseby a vote to the mensheviks, another socialist group. The masses did not rise up aganst the bolsheviks. They did however rise up to fight the white army and its foreign allies. Its not by accident that a trained and established army lost to a rag tag group of workers, peasants, and untrained revolutionaries. You are dead wrong on the people's dissatisfaction to start the civil war, people felt very strongly about it. There are ofen stories of brothers fighting on either side, no one forces you to do so. Its a tragic time, but you guys are trying to paint everything soviet with a broad brush of negativity cuz it fits your narrative. Read a history book and you will find that times under the tsar were shitty, after the civil war not so much.

File: Commie_cringe.jpg (161KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x720px

>>3322666
>>3322638
>>3322609
>>3322511
>>3322315
>>3322207
>>3321678
>>3322933
>>3322899
>>3322946

Dude WTF?

File: you_are_wrong.jpg (37KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x480px

>>3321678

>>3322943
No, you dont. You did a really bad job the first time, which is why my answers are so extensive. You just explain what I write or make some horribly incorrect statement. I think you are an egnlish teacher tht desperately wants to switch to history but hates reading nonfiction.

>>3322831
>So there is no point in trying to solidify your argument with sources? It only seems like the logical thing to do if there is solid evidence out there that you are right.
I already explained that sources are not given in this forum. He did not ask for any or provide any so why would I waste my time. You can check my facts if you like. There is hardly any solid evidence in the humanities anyway, a lot of it is inference which is subjective.
>So you just toss the concept of "burden of evidence" aside because you can get away with it on an anonymous forum, knowing there arent any rules for or against this concept. Slipping in between the cracks just because you are anonymous doesn't make you a very great debator, especially when empiracle evidence can be readily found an presented.
I didn't realize I was writing a book or participating in a debate competiton. You seem eager for everyone to know you took a debate class once and know how to analyse arguements. Good job. Also you are repeating yourself because this point is the same as the last.
> Again, puting yourself into a race and pretending like you have already won. Just because he isnt an expert on the subject doesnt make him wrong, and using shady dabate tactics to win a debate against people who dont know any better just shines a negative light upon you and puts into question any of the conclusions you make.
You just admitted like you did before that he doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about. When that happens to one party in a debate, it is safe to assume that the other has won. It is you who made this into a contest with you analysis. It is also you who is claiming I am using shady tactics like "logical traps" ooooh logic, very scary. What other shady tactics am I using exactly? These are just regular debate tactics, they arent shady.

File: 1503935600979.png (67KB, 332x300px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 332x300px

>>3322958
Im doing this shit barebones and in the forensic style of rhetoric because pointing out the flaws in appeals to ethos and unfounded conjecture is the foundation of aristotalin debate and i really dont have the patience to type out 3 posts in response to this communist fuckery.
>cuz his opening statement was semantics, what do you want from me? Why are you attacking me cuz he's an idiot.
I want you to stop relying on shady tactics to win arguments online.
>The soviet union did have famines, but... It is very impressive that they USSR accomplished what it did while competing with the west.
Among other things this fails to prove that all of these advances wherent the trend russia was taking anyway and that, given the empiracle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world, Soviet revolution only held them back. Most of these great accomplishments where already a trend of russia, and indeed most of developped society, the Soviet Union just inherited them.
>It is heavly fallicious to imply that I am being fallicious.
Baseless accusation unless you can prove that i would not have any sort of arguments without resorting to pointing out yours (I have already addressed why im going barebones, desu)
>It is very pertinent that Russia was corrupt before the USSR... when it inherits corruption.
You are attempting to mix correlation with causation. You have already said/implied that the Soviet regime was benificial to russains by stating its achievments where due to Soviet influence in your previous post, but when it comes to corruption you are more than happy to say that it was already a trend in Tsarist russia and that the Soviets only inherited the problem. Stick to one story if you want me to take you seriously.

File: 1502582363298.jpg (249KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 607x608px

>>3322958
2 mother fucking posts, goddamit.


>Well, why do I have to be the defender of everything the soviet union does in the first place. I am not a stalinist
You have taken up the task, deal with it.
>But to answer your point... [my postion is] that things got better for the vast majority of people under soviet rule, in a way that they would not have under the tsar.
I have addressed your mixing corelation and causation 2 times already, you can make a much more cohesive stance if you could stick to one and make conclusions based off of it.
>Most professors on Russian History would agree with this, there is too much data to say otherwise.
Burden of proof says that you have to back this claim up if you want to keep your arguments from being reduced to conjecture. (althought you really dont care for burden of proof it seems)
>Idk why you are providing often innacurate analysis of my responses instead of provide responses of your own.
Claiming my analysis is "innacurate" would rely on you being able to prove that it is. I am not providinging deliberative rhetoric or anecdotal evidence because i have taken it upon myself to stay purely forensic about what you have to say lest i be dragged down to flingging insults and memes like these things always end up being.
>I am not here to rewrite history or defend lenin... but you guys are trying to paint everything soviet with a broad brush of negativity cuz it fits your narrative.
There is so much emotional appeal, analogy and unprovable statements here i can only sum it up as an minefield of loaded questions and strawmen. Not to be confronted directly, but addressed as in poor taste.
>Read a history book and you will find that times under the tsar were shitty, after the civil war not so much.
Circular reasoning. You heavily imply that i have am not up to date on the history of russia simply because i have not reached the same conclusions as you did when you read up on them.

>>3321735

Not him but I've heard even intellectual people say that Stalin was the "gravedigger of communism" because he made it such an unappealing system.

>>3323048
So it turns out you dont know what the fuck you are talking about
>I want you to stop relying on shady tactics to win arguments online.
You have yet to point out these shady tactics
>Among other things this fails to prove that all of these advances wherent the trend russia was taking anyway and that, given the empiracle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world, Soviet revolution only held them back. Most of these great accomplishments where already a trend of russia, and indeed most of developped society, the Soviet Union just inherited them.
The empiricle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world isnt empirical evidence at all. Russia was behind the times, 2nd to last to industrialize next to japan compared to the west. You are flat out wrong on the point that the accomplishments of the USSR were already a trend. There are no credible literary sources that point this out, the fact that the US was behind on some of the social issues that the USSR had establshed unerlines the fact that a backward country like Russia did not have those ideas trending at the time. This point of yours truely shows that you know very little about revolutionary Russia and I suggest you read up on it. This is not a debated point in academic circles.
>You are attempting to mix correlation with causation. You have already said/implied that the Soviet regime was benificial to russains by stating its achievments where due to Soviet influence in your previous post, but when it comes to corruption you are more than happy to say that it was already a trend in Tsarist russia and that the Soviets only inherited the problem. Stick to one story if you want me to take you seriously.
You do understand that it is the same country with a new government right? So there is a baseline state. They failed at eradicating the corruption and succeeded at advancing literacy for example. Why is this so hard to understand. Corruption is very difficult to get rid of which is why I brought it up.

>>3323050
>I have addressed your mixing corelation and causation 2 times already, you can make a much more cohesive stance if you could stick to one and make conclusions based off of it.
Justbecause you say it does not mean its true. I am obviousy arguing that it is causation. Because it did not exist before, the USSR implemented policy, then it happened. To argue that it is correlation is baseless and idiotic as there is no reason to indcate that it is.This is some weird misinformation tactic that you are using, which benefits no one cuz only u and I are reading this bullshit.
> Burden of proof
we have been over this 3 times. This is not the correct forum to provide sources in. Everything on this board is conjecture you retard, as is most of the humanities. Its not that i dont care about sources, its that there is no point. To me we are talking and you keep asking me which page of which book I read this in. If this was a debate tournament, or a paper, or a thesis, I would have those for you but it would take too much time to find sources for all the topics we are covering. I can list books for you if you like, but you wont check, so what it the point exactly aside from you wasting my time.
> innacurate analysis
I think it is self evident by my responses. Just because you are being autisticly forensic does not mean you are not inaccurate
> here is so much emotional appeal, analogy and unprovable statements here i can only sum it up as an minefield of loaded questions and strawmen. Not to be confronted directly, but addressed as in poor taste.
There is no appeal here at all you fool. We have already establshed that the statements here are unprovable, you are being repetative for no reason. There was no loaded question, you are using buzz words at this point. Pretty pathetic. Its not even really a strawman to be honest. You just like to sound smart but you dont know wtf you are talking about.
>Cicular reasoning
Its not. You arent up on Rus his cuz ur facts are false.

File: 1504321775449.gif (2MB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x640px

>>3323115
>This point of yours truly shows that you know very little about revolutionary Russia and I suggest you read up on it.

Oh really now? would you care to point me to some sources that back up your position that Soviet advances where due to their own inherent competency as opposed to the self-evident nature of the trends being made in society in that point? Disproving the idea of them riding on the benefits of an advancing global society is critical to this assignment.

>>3322596
>Mi-8
Are Pinochet memers really this dumb?

>>3321483
>famine happens in ukraine as is every so often in a near post-feudal society
>A foreign power which used to be your imperial protectorate and authority tells you to hand over all your grain in the middle of a famine
>Kulaks (which is extremely arbitary) collectively decide to burn all their grain instead of ship it to a foreign power who doesn't need it while their in the middle of a crisis???
>Ukranian which hunt begins to solidify soviet power in the region

b-but it wasnt imperialism and deliberately removing the workers produce because I dont want it to be.

>>3322315
>dont give working class people control of the goverment
wait what? Do you know what communism is? Christ you can literally break it down into "the dictatorship of the polteriat" instead of the bourgeois, are you retarded?
What do you think revolutionary workers councils are?

>>3322566
>reeeeee the cia are liars and never tell the truth! Exept when it turned out they werent lying about cambodia or the USSR even a little.

They were actually true and their reports got blown out of proportion. Woops

>>3322583
There's a huge difference. Communists seek to abolish commodity production, money, and the state. Stalinists just want to government to manage capitalism.

File: x to doubt.png (84KB, 419x238px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 419x238px

The fact that people need to discuss this just proves how effective the Stalinist propaganda is today. The Kulaks were farmers, the soviet state decided to steal all the food that they had farmed in order to feed the workers who were poor and had no food. The Kulaks realized they would starve to death which is why some of them burned the crops (their own crops that they owned). What's to stop me from burning all the food i have in my fridge right now? I am not evil for destroying my own food. And if the state came to me right now and said "We're going to have to take most of your food to feed the workers", and i saw they left me with not enough food to prevent my children from starving to death, then i can't say that's anything but the gravest of injustices.

This type of insane equality-inspired wealth redistribution by the state is not just or righteous in any way and it should be obvious to all.

>>3323375
Burning food you have already purchased is completely different from food you are contracted to produce for people who need it.

Don't be disingenuous.

From world's granary to importing wheat from saudi arabia. Thanks, gommies.

>>3323383
Farmers aren't contracted to produce food for someone who needs it, that's... I don't know where you got it from? You want the farmers food, so pay for it, don't steal it all and leave his family to starve. I made myself clear in my previous post.

>>3323153
>Oh really now? would you care to point me to some sources that back up your position that Soviet advances where due to their own inherent competency as opposed to the self-evident nature of the trends being made in society in that point? Disproving the idea of them riding on the benefits of an advancing global society is critical to this assignment.
Here we go with the sources again. I have explained that this is no the correct environement for sourced material and you know it. But fine. The Soviet Experiment by Suny, the Russian Revolution by Fitzpatrick, Natasha's Dance by Figes. You have no idea how far behind imperial russia was compared to the west in terms of industrialization and technology. These are not heavily debated facts you are asking meto source obvious things like air is lighter than water because you dont know enough about the subject and it hurts you theory that communists apperantly cant do anything right, which is absurd.
Disproving the benefits of an advancing global society is not critical to this assignment because it does play a role you retard but it would be one that is proportional. Russia goes from an embaressed, backward world power that lost2 wars in a row. To a country that has fallen apart due to civil war. To an industrial giant and military superpower that challenges the most successful capitalist country in many aspects despite the role it played in WWII. Then it collapses and Russia is just a regular world power now. Idk if you noticed, but the rest of global societies did not become industrial mamoths and military superpowers. Not britain, not france, no one else. The united states wasalready industrialized and it did not boom in proportion. One could argue that Gaermany did as well, but that certainly isnt in accoradance with advancing global society.
This is why I dont like you, you made me address a point that is very self-evident. You act like you are making smart remarks, but they are way off base.

>>3323252
I do, you clearly dont. There are so many different forms that using a phrase like dictatorship of the proletariat is meaningless, thats a sound byte that in and of itself means nothing. Any form of democratic gov is giving "the people" control of the gov. This was technically true under stalin's gov as well. But thats not the interpretation the guy I was arguing with was using. There are councels out there that employed actually workers and others that employed politicians. There have been commie government that LITERALLY give the means of production to the workers. There are others that give the people power directly through direct democracy. Then of course there is the republican model, etc, etc. All of these have different levels in which the workers actually control the means of production, even though they technically control them in every scenario. A worker owning a piece of a company is different to a worker voting for a guywho he thinks will do the right thing with the company. Stop being a basic bitch. If you can use one sentence to address a problem that people write books about you are probably being an idiot.

who cares they had a dedicated core of loyal men and women who had barely any real oversight and were not even reprimanded for invading peoples homes or damaging the temples especially in the early years
they could have done anything since even the richest peasant has no idea what to do about it

i don't know if a foreign person care but many of the rural folk literally were almost a stereotypical peasant

>>3321525
Yeah i'm sure hunger in USA in 30s was caused by commies too.

Not everyone was a "kulak." Kulak became an umbrella categoricalization for anyone whom Stalin considered an enemy of the state. Furthermore, local authorities had to fulfill quotas, and rounded up plenty of peasants who weren't kulaks.

It was a pretty fucked up situation.

The rats have come out of the closet to express their apoligism for Stalin.

>>3321546
>the real reason for the famine was the sparrows

The winged bourgeois, true enemy of the people

File: 1504233414675.png (181KB, 3218x1424px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 3218x1424px

>>3325647

File: 1504024146775.jpg (31KB, 472x461px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 472x461px

>>3325680
Great one mate

File: 4.png (13KB, 625x393px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 625x393px

>>3325593
I suppose all the ex Soviet citizens who loved him are just lying then?

>>3326189
>dude I think we need to get back the nazism because some people love hitler so much.

File: Breadline.jpg (91KB, 816x556px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 816x556px

>>3326189
I bet they didn't miss the bread lines.

>>3326189
>no data on polling size
>lacks sources
>Not even a note about where this data is coming from or what paper it was gathered for

This might as well be a picture of a nude lady with stalins face photoshoped over her own for all the credibility it lends your argument.

File: soup kitchens, breadlines, new york.jpg (487KB, 1038x539px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1038x539px

>>3326249
>I bet they didn't miss the bread lines.
A necessary evil in order to Combat America Imperialism

>>3326249
For most of those people, the alternative was not being able to afford any bread. They grew up in far more scarce circumstances.

Read Khlevniuk, Getty, Fitzpatrick, or Suny for illustrations on traditional agrarian poverty in the Russian Empire.

>>3326273
>so you don't like USSR communism, you must rather want the awful feudal russian empire back, don't you?

Dude seems like those poor souls only had two options, starve in feudalism or starve in communism.

File: holy-stalin-red-square.jpg (52KB, 610x386px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 610x386px

>>3326263
>>3326189

I don't see many people nostalgic with the american great depression, also maybe the reason why russian are nostalgic for Stalin is because masochism is a trait of their culture.

>>3326301
Less starvation in under the Soviet system, unless you were some poor soul stuck in Ukraine in 1930-1932

>>3326324
Stalin built up the economy more successfully than FDR, repelled the Nazis, and turned the USSR into a world power. He also executed about a million people and allowed several million more to starve.

My guess is that Russians like Stalin because, despite his abuses, more people were helped than harmed by his rule. And the people killed by Stalin didn't always have descendents able to nurture a grudge.

File: Starvin.png (63KB, 479x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 479x450px

>>3326371
>1930-1932.
Well seems like stalin took his toll in that regard.

>>3326378
> And the people killed by Stalin didn't always have descendents able to nurture a grudge.

This is nice tip.

>>3321831

>Super
>Romanian
>Proletarian

>>3326493
All this shows is that the worst years of the Soviet Union were substantially better than in the Tsarist period

>>3326534
>implying you can't achieve better results with plain simple capitalism.

Remember the NEP, maybe that was a good idea after all.

File: Romanian_Super_Proletarian.png (26KB, 1869x277px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1869x277px

>>3326512
every time kek

>tfw reading about how kulaks were willing to exploit a famine to profit off of grain surplus

How can anyone in their right mind still think these vermin were the victims in all this?

>>3326646
Your average kulak was a simple family farmer, Stalin took all the grain to feed the cities while let the kulaks starve. But of course they deserved it, right?

>>3326693
"Simple grain farmers" who hoarded food in times of famine despite their contractual obligation to feed people less fortunate

>>3326710
>people less fortunate
>than the impoverished farmers who had not only lost what little property they had, but much of their yield that their families depended on to live

>>3326710
Why stalin didn't pay for the food instead? also the "contractual obligation" seems very unfair to the farmers, all this was very similar to feudal quotas in the imperial russia.

>>3326734
Why didnt the kulak try to help their fellow citizens

>>3321483
Food is the enemy of the revolution comrade. You don't want it, it is an illusion of the bourgeois.

>>3322609
The artist who made this pic added subtle hints that communism leads to famine and death. Look at the ocean of blood in the background and the skulls on the table while the politicians make shady deals in the back.

The "Kulaks" were only the most successful farmers and largest food producers in the country. If you were able to employ even a couple of locals to help your family farm, you were a kulak, and the party would send in a city (pseudo)intellectual to tell your neighbors that you were the reason they were not not wealthy, that you were the enemy of all the people. These people, these 20% of the farmers producing 80% of the food, would have their farms collectivized and under the administration of some incompetent, or the Kulaks would be raped/murdered at the hands of a mob, at best, and their once-successful farms looted and ruined.

>>3326646
>read propaganda written to support [viewpoint]
>wtf how can anyone not agree with [viewpoint] now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccASsjhhgP8

He couldn't very well admit that the collective farm system was an abject failure, or that he was an ass, could he? Of course not. He couldn't admit the collectivization of the "Kulak" farms was a mistake, and better everyone die than he admit he actually needed them back.

No, they burned their own farms, and starved themselves and their neighbors out of spite. They also rapes and beat eachother, then disappeared into Siberia, to spread venomous rumors about Stalin and sacred socialism. This is the only rational conclusion that any doctrinally sound Soviet citizen could come to.

>>3327606
> and the party would send in a city (pseudo)intellectual to tell your neighbors that you were the reason they were not not wealthy

this was a major factor in the demise of the kulaks. young, brash, and psued went out to the countryside to promote the good word of the communism. i believe it was similar to the cultural revolution where youth dispersed among the countryside to reeducate the poor farm folk.

>>3321666
Underated comment

>>3326734
>Why stalin didn't pay for the food instead?
He did, there was a standard state-buy price and kulaks refused to sell grain cheap hoping for profits later.
Stalin himself wrote how now that kulaks have money to maneuver they can play economic games with the state.
Soviets originally planned to have a class of farmers-kulaks only to realize later they created an undesirable potential political power within the country that will not just give them wheat for industrialization. So from 1928 they went for collectivization instead.

>>3329060
>He did, there was a standard state-buy price and kulaks refused to sell grain cheap hoping for profits later.

Do you have the source of the prices he paid?

>>3329060
>Soviets originally planned to have a class of farmers-kulaks only to realize later they created an undesirable potential political power within the country that will not just give them wheat for industrialization.

So because they didn't want any opposition they eradicated the kulak as a class. this makes sense, if you want a big centralized economy the last thing you want is a bunch of small farmers complaining about the unfair payment and stupid high demands of the state.

>>3329060
>Stalin himself wrote

Kek, maybe I must believe in Hitler words too

>>3329239
>only super-villain like Stalin could say that peasants refuse to sell wheat cheap to state monopoly, there is no way they would do such outrageous thing
ok

File: Stalin_joke.gif (2MB, 293x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 293x240px

>>3329322
>only good leader like Stalin could say that the evil greedy (((Kulaks))) refuse to sell wheat cheaply to the fair state monopoly. How they dared!!!!

Ok man, they deserved it. seems like Stalin did nothing wrong after all.

>>3329442
>communism is Jewish!
>communism is antisemitic!

why do I feel like it's the same group of people making these arguments...

File: Antizionist_soviet.jpg (334KB, 800x537px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 800x537px

>>3330085
communists hate zionists, maybe they can be considered anti
semites too, right?

File: page0209.png (183KB, 1036x1659px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1036x1659px

>>3329152
Page from statistics brochure on Orlov province from 1928
http://lounb.ru/fulltext/images/books/statsbornik-137068/HTML/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html
Overall state price was ~2 times lower than on market. So they tried to fight the state hiding the bread to raise prices. Forcing state to choose between scrapping industrialization to pay kulaks or scrap kulaks. Not a good idea.

>>3325474
>hunger in USA in 30s
Didn't really happen outside of some of the worst ghettos in the most segregated neighborhoods. Famine never occurs under capitalism.

>>3330104
Zionism is fascism, and far from the only expression of Judaism.

>>3330427
This is such absolute bullshit that it makes me angry. Famines in Ireland, India, Iran, and Africa under capitalism greatly outweigh any famines that have occurred in socialist countries yet you don't hear about them because they aren't useful propaganda for the ruling class.

>>3330427
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1931/compendia/statab/53ed.html

Whoops comrade i mean mister no statistics on 1932 in USA. Well i'm sure no white people starved after losing jobs and all their savings and properties. It's not like there were hungry riots and MacArthur and Patton had to attack veterans in Washington in 1932 or something.

>>3330420
>Forcing state to choose between scrapping industrialization to pay kulaks or scrap kulaks. Not a good idea.

Or maybe the state would have give them a fair price and didn't let them starve with high grain quotas. Also, you seem so worried about defending Stalin aggressive collectivization policies than you forget the kulaks were just simple family farmers. Stalin made a mistake and took the life of quite a bunch of people, there is no justification for that. He perfectly would have achieved industrialization of the country without starving his own people, this apply to Mao regime too.

>>3330548
>Ireland
>Iran
>implying a mercantilist economy is capitalism

>>3330548
Colonialism =/= capitalism
>>3330558
Tell me how many people died of starvation during the Great Depression within the USA.

The "hungry riots" were just vets chimping out as they always have done ever since the Revolution. None of them were literally starving to death, they were just pissed off that they were being denied their gibs.

>>3330548
>see we comit the same mistakes, checkmate porkies.

So why communism is better than capitalism then?

File: Capitalism_for_lefties.jpg (162KB, 1024x657px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x657px

>>3330548
>Famines in Ireland, India, Iran, and Africa
>Capitalism

So this is the origin of this image.

>>3330619
>irish famine
>caused by mercantilism
You're a real pile of shit, look up the opinions of the British Chancellor of the exchequer, the great famine was caused by anything fucking but Mercantilism.

>>3330631
I love it when people don't know how to use significant figures like in that image because it makes it so easy to disregard anything they've said.
>>3330632
Something which is separate from free trade

>>3321483
The Kulaks would've been killed and stripped of their farms whether they did or did not comply.

File: Soviet_antisemitism.jpg (13KB, 202x250px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 202x250px

>>3330540
I don't think they separated the zionism from judaism very much.

>>3321694
>even american propaganda say that the kulaks had it coming

>>3322583
>le Bernie is communist meme
ebin XDDD!

>>3323354
>Stalinists want to manage capitalism
Are you deluded?

>>3330427
>famine never occurs under capitalism
lol

>>3330619
You're about a century off on your assessment there buddy. Mercantilism had given way to the free market by the mid-to-late 1700s, and the big famines of the free market (Ireland, India) all occurred in the 19th century.

>>3331023
Nice examples

>>3331050
The Corn Laws caused much of the Irish famine, which were protectionist laws and tariffs, aka not free trade.

India was a colony and the Bengal famine and others preceding it were due to British soldiers stealing food for their own needs at the expense of poor laborers. Not free trade.

>>3331063
Excuses

File: bolshevist kike commie.png (78KB, 349x465px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 349x465px

Yeah those filthy anti Semitic goyim deserved it for persecuting Jewish people for centuries!!

>>3322315
underrated post

File: 416a03d.png (92KB, 320x273px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 320x273px

>>3321678
>Source: My sore ass

>>3331492
Do you even know who Radek is?

>>3331492
you are really stupid
the dude on the picture was killed in 1939 by your "kike loving" commies, while he was a kike commie himself

>>3330621
>Tell me how many people died of starvation during the Great Depression within the USA.
7 millions.

>>3331442
>capitalism caused these famines
>well actually, the government messing with the free market caused those famines
>THAT'S NOT REAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!

>>3330614
Kulaks were entrusted with land and given permission to exploit poor peasants in exchange for providing grain for the state. They failed to provide it. The end (of kulaks).

And i am not aware of countries going from agrarian to industrial powerhouses in 10 years. USSR would get rekt in ww2 if it went slower. And soviets did expect attack any year, they did not see it as "oh well we got to build it till 40s".

>>3331836

>kulaks were entrusted with land and given permission to exploit the poor peasants
The average kulak was a man with a family farm. so in your logic, they were exploiting themselves. In the end, they deserved it because they couldn't satisfy the state ridiculous demands.

Also

>And I am not aware of countries going from agrarian to industrial powerhouses in 10 years. The USSR would get wrecked in ww2 if it went slower. And soviets did expect attack any year, they did not see it as "oh well, we got to build it till 40s".

Are you telling me Stalin expected to be attacked in every moment? (and people say Hitler was the warmonger) but this makes sense because the paranoid behavior of this tyrannical bastard. Besides, you can be an "industrial powerhouse" without starving your own people, this is not that impossible.

>>3331741
>7 millions

source man?

>>3331442
I mean, there are cases you could make that unregulated markets do result in human deaths, notably pollution/waste, but instead you give the same few dumb examples just because they're eye-catching and because you learned them off of /r/communism

>>3332062
>The average kulak was a man with a family farm
No that's just farmers. Unless you think soviets arrested 100% of peasant population because they were family farms. Kulaks were rich and used hired workers. Rural upper class. That lost civil war and was gaining power again.
>Are you telling me Stalin expected to be attacked in every moment?
There was an economic blockade in early 20s. In 1927 Britain, a superpower of the era, cut diplomatic and trading ties with USSR. Soviets saw it as a possible prelude to war to stop the spread of communism. Then nazis came and war became even more apparent.
> you can be an "industrial powerhouse" without starving your own people, this is not that impossible.
Once again it's about speed. USSR did not have 50 years and national capital or colonies, only agrarian resources and ticking clock.

>>3331005
That's all they've ever done. No Stalinist has made an attempt to abolish commodity production or give workers control of the economy!

>>3331057
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

1750-onward pretty much

>>3331664
Lots of Jews were killed by Stalin actually, because many German emigres were Jewish but had theoretical disagreements with Stalin. Jews were also disproportionately in the middle bureaucracy of the USSR thanks to their higher average level of education, and middle bureaucrats were the vast majority of those killed in the purges.

Stalin was definitely somewhat anti Semitic, but not excessively by the standards of the time, and this probably influenced some of his purge orders.

File: Hitler_vs_Stalin.gif (42KB, 445x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 445x600px

>>3332182
>Unless you think soviets arrested 100% of peasant population because they were family farms.

When the premise was collectivize your farms or die, so I don't see the diference.

>Kulaks were rich and used hired workers. Rural upper class. That lost civil war and was gaining power again.

I have my doubts about that, the characterization of what was a kulak was very arbitrary in those moment, you can be considered a kulak if you have involve in simple trade with your neighbors or lend your farm tools.

>Soviets saw it as a possible prelude to war to stop the spread of communism. Then nazis came and war became even more apparent.

So Stalin feared a Britain invasion?, man this is so funny, seem like the only real justification you need about the USSR's fast industrialization was preparation for ww2, you know, when the nazis backstabbed Stalin.

>>3332214
just repost this >>3330631

>>3332244
>So Stalin feared a Britain invasion?, man this is so funny,
Yeah so funny, it's not like British intervention in Russia already happened in 1918-20, haha Britain so peaceful almost like modern USA, fake news.

>>3321483
Communists: Kill the rich farmers!
Farmers: Burn the crops!

Result: 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death.

But "real Communism" has never been tried, right comrades?

>>3330631
Yeah, it starts with 100,000,000 Indians in America starving to death.

It's trash.

>>3332244
>When the premise was collectivize your farms or die, so I don't see the diference.
you are mixing collective farms creation and kulak arrests. Separate events. Kulaks were deported to special settlements.

File: main-qimg-035271188f9725731214785e87873b20.png (79KB, 508x316px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 508x316px

>>3332067

>>3332358
>Stalin fear the anglo warrior.

Why all communist needs to pull the victim card when someone make evident their own inefficiency and malice?

>>3332373
>special settlements.

Like gulags or "fun" camps?

As someone who would totally suck off Makhno.
Yes they did.

>>3332391
>1950

>>3332424
1950. People of different age that were born before 1950 are counted. You understand the concept?

File: Makhno.png (19KB, 928x344px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 928x344px

>>3332415
Indeed :^)

>>3332470
Hint - there's a fucking gap among those who were born before or during the hunger. Most vulnerable group.

>>3332470
sorry, but do you have a more clear source?

>>3321694
>spread of communism all over the world
Isnt that a complete u-turn of Stalin's "Socalism in one country" policy, isnt that why Icepicism exists?

>>3332391
What suggests the gap is explained by deaths and not people having less children ?

>>3332363
There have been many revolutions led by communists, but communism has never existed.

Communism is a totally different kind of society from anything that's ever existed, a society where commodity production is abolished and the economy is socialized and the state has been replaced by a network of grassroots democracy.

>>3334410
Not him and you're probably right, but I want to point out that a decline in population growth is often used by anti communists to claim that Soviet famines killed absurd amounts of people.

Richard Pipes insisted for years that somewhere around 30 million people died in the Holodomor, citing not any analysis of the famine itself but instead the slowing population growth in the years after... disregarding the medical, social, and economic changes in post-revolutionary Ukraine that encouraged later marriage and smaller families all throughout the USSR.

>>3332473
Did Makhno actually steal supplies and food from the Red Army? I thought he just defended peasants from Cossacks and Antisemitic pogroms

File: OMEGA_STALIN.png (511KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 624x624px

>>3321483
THEY
DESERVED
WORSE

File: yfw_Stalin.png (164KB, 500x348px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 500x348px

>>3334875

>>3335012
What a tragic day

>>3334864
Yes why?

File: Socialism.png (147KB, 793x4926px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 793x4926px

>>3334864
No. soviets were the traitors.

>>3326301
more like
>starve under feudalism where any success/advancement was limited both practically and theoretically.

>eat poorly under communism where advancement was at least theoretically easier to attain, but end up starving in a gulag anyway.

>>3329181
the question is why would you want a centralized economy?

at most you'd want a federation/confederation of centralized economies with some level of interaction and competition between them, as to promote "reality", yet have a strong safety-net maintained over the whole thing so there wasn't "lethal"/"long-lasting"-damage that could result from fallout.

Ideally you'd just have capitalism with a social-safety net, since capitalism is really good at changing society and making people godless hedonists.

>>3321483
>communism, fascism and nazism
The 20th century was a mistake.

>>3321538
*people are monsters
FTFY

>>3321483
Burning fields is a common farming practice to help the soil. This just got twisted into muh greedy Kulaks to justify more commie crimes.

>>3330085
Tbh the world is basically divided between Zionist Jews and internationalist Jews and everyone else are just pawns.

>>3338975
Where did it go do wrong?

>>3340369
WW1. Imagine if Europe didn't lose a generation of young men and became what it is today; weak and desperately searching for any cause to fill the old void.

File: 79d.jpg (8KB, 465x123px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 465x123px

>>3321657
Yes

>>3334767
>but communism has never existed.
Tell that to the tens of millions of people who died at the hands of communists.

>>3339396
Not that I don't believe you, but could you post a source that indicates this?

>>3340369

"God is dead."

>>3338968
>why would you want a centralized economy?
i'm sure many people asked commies that while capitalist world was falling deep into great depression with no visible solution.

>>3342332
As an ideology, sure. But not as a form of society.

There has never been a country without private property and commodity production.

>>3334410
I guess all those missing people from 1926-1930 chose to not be born because they foresaw the great depression of 1930s.

>>3343347
Has there been a successful ancap country

>>3344738
somalia

>>3322457
Nice photoshop. Why did you add a random gremlin next to the Man of Steel?

>>3321483
Yes

>>3345245
Why

>>3344738
>>3344744
>ancap
>country
I think you kind of miss the point of ancap.

>>3332363
>Result: 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death.
Will you ever stop this bullshit?
Census data for Ukraine, population

1926: 29,018,187
1937: 28,387,609

To have 10 millions deaths you need to increase population of Ukraine by 30% in 5 years period, let 10 millions, and then increase by 30% in five years period again.

>>3346894
What is the point

>>3322777
>The soviet union, cuba, and many other socalist countries have great workers rights records far ahead of what the US had at the time they were mandated
Oh, that's pretty co-

>this isnt propoganda, just because there were human rights violations and prison camps,
So much for those rights then when you can be picked up by armed men at 2am in the morning and be never seen again.

File: 1503853438404.png (175KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 624x352px

>>3347859
>he trusts official Soviet statistics

File: 1500753393001.png (602KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 793x794px

"kulaks" were nothing more than the grandsons of liberated serfs, which still had to pay back the land when they were liberated, that worked hard to create a better life fir their families and the commies demonized them so that all the alcoholic and resented lazy marxist would persecute them and kill them so that the State could confiscate the land

collectivists deserve to be shot

>>3326371
>less starvation
>if you exclude the area where millions of people died from starvation
jogging the noggin

>>3350369
>>he trusts official Soviet statistics
It's not official statistic, but real numbers.
1937 census data were classified and became open only after fall of Soviet Union.

>>3351293
Not an argument

>>3352986
>facts i dislike are propaganda, guesses i like are absolute truths

>>3351293
thats retarded

>>3352986
There's little reason for falsified data of census records. When macrosocial and macroeconomic data in the archives was false it was usually errors in reporting, such as reported production of, say, tractors within a given year. Those were always wrong, but not purposely so by the data-compilers.

>>3321483
They burned the food because the state was taking all of it and leaving them to starve. It was the only method they had of protest.

I think 10 million is too much, but you don't count internal migration of USSR (Russian settlers in other republics) and huge child birth rates of the USSR with 6 births per women in 20s and 5 in 30s. For example, the Niger's population is the most fertile in the world, and they have 7 children per woman.

>>3354087
Good job. Your actions led to the death of innocents

>>3355501
>Good job. Your actions led to the death of innocents.

Yes, Piss off stalin was a messy business, they should have obeyed and starve like the rest.

>>3353994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

>>3354160
Total population of USSR increased only by 10% between 1926 and 1937.
In 1926 population of Ukraine was 20% of USSR population.

>>3321483
Kulaks were just conveniently chosen as scapegoats for the state of affairs at the time. Moscow was in dire need of capital and goods at the time, so they demoted/killed/imprisoned kulaks in order to acquire their riches and property.

It's not rocket science.

>>3337540
This pic is so full of shit.