The Leftist AssemblyBoard

Cedoria wrote:

Once again, you either didn't get what I said, or deliberately misread it.
Not only anti-Soviet historians refer to it as man-made. There was a Russian historian who wrote three whole biographies on Stalin pointing out his culpability in the famine (whose name for the life of me I've been trying to recall. I'll have a search through my old textbooks and see if I can find it). He also later wrote three books on Lenin, and in the course of researching them revised his initially favourable opinion of him. Guy was not anti-Soviet by any means, but the evidence led him to the conclusion.

For someone who really hates his argument being misrepresented, you sure do a whole lot of it to others.
My own argument was that it was partially man made, partially natural, the man made aspect of it being when the Kulaks burnt the grain and slaughtered the animals.
Let me requote that for you and underline the parts where I specifically say that.

Vegemiteisgross wrote:

By "millions of lives" do you mean the natural famine caused by the extreme bad weather? Or do you mean the intentional starvation of the USSR by the rich peasants who wished to be a separate bourgeois class to the rest of the country?
...
Either way, I'll let you know that the Eastern countries had suffered for many, many centuries under periodical famine and that the very last famine in the country was under the USSR. They put a stop to periodical famine. That's an achievement, not a point against them. Since the dissolution, there is now capitalist famine: Poor people starving.

Vegemiteisgross wrote:

On Holodomor:
Let's requote what I said.So let's unpack this:
First, I detest that you say that I said it was "solely caused by bad weather". I did not, as seen above.
First is that there were terrible weather conditions:
On the assertion that it was engineered, then why did the famine extend past the borders of the Soviet Union? Both Bulgaria and Turkey were hit by the famine.
There were periodic, cyclical famines in Eastern Europe. There was a famine in:
1920-21, 1924-25, 1928-29 and then Holodomor.
The Soviet Union was not the only country to be hit by famine this year. The United States, China, and West Africa were all hit by famine in 1930-1932.

Looking at geographical context, it was not only Ukraine which did not produce enough food during the famine, Kazakstan also was hit by a very poor crop cycle. Volga was hit by the drought too, as with Siberia.
Second is the intentional starvation by the rich peasants:
This is so widely known even bourgeois sources acknowledge it. If you look at the BBC history site on Stalin's collectivisation, they also blame the Kulaks for intentionally starting famines.
"they [peasants] burned their crops and killed their animals rather than hand them over to the state. There was another famine in 1930.

Stalin relaxed the rules for a while, but in 1931 he again tried to enforce collectivisation.
Again there was the same resistance and another, worse famine."
Anti-Communist sources also confirm this, Robert Conquest writes in Stalin: Breaker of Nations:
"Rather than allow their cattle to fall into the hands of the state, they had slaughtered half of the country's herd. By March it was plain that disaster had overtaken the countryside."

So yes, there were natural causes, being the cyclical bad weather as well as the worse weather which impacted the entire world, but it was also anthropogenic, the rich kulaks burnt their crops and killed their animals during a drought induced poor crop cycle. This killing of the animals and burning of the crops caused the already bad famine to worsen.

Can you stop being a hypocrite? Or at the very least, argue in good faith? Thanks.

Ofuria wrote:

Even if the Kulaks did interfere with the USSR’s economic plan, Stalin had no right to force them to gulags and forcibly collectivize people’s farms. .

So are you saying burning and slaughtering food in a famine is a completely fine thing to do, and those who do so shouldn't be arrested? As well collectivism is a necessary part of providing for everyone, by barring the individual the right to private property the individual can't keep perfectly good food from people. This is why there's thousands of homeless people dying under capitalism, that being privatization of all resources.

Vegemiteisgross wrote:

I think you're the one misreading our argument, we aren't denying that there was a famine, like you say here:
Who has said there wasn't a famine? There was a famine.
Labourism does say there was a famine.
Why are you misreading our arguments, then accusing us of misreading yours?

Secondly, I will continue to point out the absolutely disgusting comparisons you make between the holodomor and the Holocaust.
Here is implication one, Labourism was talking about the holodomor, and yet you bring up Hitler for what reason exactly?

And then when Heck rightly points out that there WAS a whole lot that Hitler wrote about in getting rid of the Jews.
You respond with this:
You dodge Heck's point about there being plenty of calls for Jewish extermination in Mein Kampf, and then deflect off his last sentence?

I'm sorry, but you seem to be directly comparing the two atrocities. Don't give me that bull**** that you are "only comparing how people deny both". That's utter nonsense and this sort of argumentation which you have shown previously on our discord (I can get receipts for those too if you want.) is extremely dishonest. I really do think it's utterly vile to compare the purposeful extermination of the Jewish people to the holodomor, especially since even the most anti-communist sources will blame the Kulaks, as I showed with sources.

If you can't tell, I'm actually fuming.

I can. Just not sure why.

I've read Mein Kampf, it does certainly imply genocide. But again, I reiterate, the fact is that no actual ORDER exists that we know for its commission from Hitler. Yet we still know he ordered it. Thus, the mere fact we don't have evidence of the order being given is NOT evidence of lack of culpability, whether it be Hitler or Stalin we discuss. I was pointing out that saying no record exists of Stalin actually giving the order is a very weak point to make, when the same is said in many other cases with plenty of other supplied evidence that renders it moot.

If you chose to misread that and interpret it as me saying that one atrocity was somehow 'better' than the other, well then I can't help you. I notice you seem to be quick to ascribe these motives to me a lot of the time, then are not interested when I explain why I'm saying what I'm saying. I can't help what you think, so if you're fuming, I guess that's your problem.

STALIN IS A FASCIST! DON'T BELIEVE ME?

IN A NUTSHELL, HE USE THE POVERTY AND STARVATION IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS (KAZAKHSTAN, LITHUANIA, LATVIA, ESTONIA, UKRAINE), SO THAT RUSSIANS WOULD REPOPULATE THAT AREA AND BECAME A MAJORITY THERE.

SECOND, MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT. DOESN'T NEED MUCH EXPLANATION.

I would search for sources to extend this post.

chil

Mirkzistan wrote:

STALIN IS A FASCIST! DON'T BELIEVE ME?

IN A NUTSHELL, HE USE THE POVERTY AND STARVATION IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS (KAZAKHSTAN, LITHUANIA, LATVIA, ESTONIA, UKRAINE), SO THAT RUSSIANS WOULD REPOPULATE THAT AREA AND BECAME A MAJORITY THERE.

SECOND, MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT. DOESN'T NEED MUCH EXPLANATION.

I would search for sources to extend this post.

chill

Mirkzistan wrote:

STALIN IS A FASCIST! DON'T BELIEVE ME?

IN A NUTSHELL, HE USE THE POVERTY AND STARVATION IN THE SOVIET REPUBLICS (KAZAKHSTAN, LITHUANIA, LATVIA, ESTONIA, UKRAINE), SO THAT RUSSIANS WOULD REPOPULATE THAT AREA AND BECAME A MAJORITY THERE.

SECOND, MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT. DOESN'T NEED MUCH EXPLANATION.

I would search for sources to extend this post.

About the famine in Kazakhstan : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933
Helpful diagram : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Kazakhstan_demographics_1897-1970_en.png

About the russification in the Baltic States : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states_under_Soviet_rule_(1944%E2%80%9391)
Helpful explanation : https://web.archive.org/web/20100316172713/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_89.php

About HOLODOMOR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
HOLODOMOR : Considered genocide by 16 countries
Considered as a criminal act of the Stalinist regime by 6 countries
Considered a tragedy or crime against humanity by 5 international organizations

I will return with more SOURCES from books.

Greatereurope wrote:

I personally believe that communism is a good idea in theroy, but does not work because humans are inherantly greedy

Nonsense.

Even if humans are to be accepted as inherently greedy (that's debatable), why should that necessarily have implications for Communism?

First point, when you have a family, locked up in a house, for some reason. They have food for long enough to survive, but not much else. If you're the father or mother, what do you do in that situation? Kill or the children and relatives and take the food for yourself? Of course not, in that circumstance, you share. That's normal human behavior, anybody who doesn't do that is pathological. They generally get locked up. That is just as much 'inherent human nature' as the greedy and selfish behavior we indulge in.

Secondly, if we were to accept the greedy point, that would mean Communism would still 'work' (notice how people who say this never define what they mean by it?). Most of the world would benefit from a little being taken from the richest tiny minority and given to the masses of hungry, sickly and malnourished. If the whole 'greed' thing is true, that shouldn't affect the point of Communism one way or another.

Despite this being one of the most common points raised against hard-left politics in general, it's easily one of the laziest and silliest points I've ever seen raised against it.

Please don't take this rant personally, as it wasn't directed at you, but I hope you think about the issue in a new way because of it. If you have further questions on ideology, there are plenty of us here with enough interest and expertise to assist you!

Woflines wrote:

What makes you think that humans are inherently greedy? Where do you draw this conclusion from?

If you draw it from today's economic system, you are simply mistaken, because capitalism has existed for only a minute fraction of human existence. The same can be said for any system which has private property, all the way back to slave society; modern humans have existed for ~200 000 years and only in the last 12 000 has any form of private property existed.
If we were to look at society before agriculture, we could conclude that humans are inherently cooperative, as there was simply no place for exploitation, everyone had to work to survive.
The reality is that "human nature" is dependant upon the existing developments and relations of production, and not some static, unchanging set of characteristics of so called "human nature".

Also a fine point. Clearly our natures do change over time, albeit relatively slowly. In Ancient Europe, genocide and the mass displacement of populations was considered perfectly acceptable military practice (for reference, see Julius Caesar's Gallic War Commentaries). Today, such behavior incites mass condemnation, and is subject to criminal prosecution if its perpatrators can be charged. Human nature evolves in line with productive forces and slowly changing cultural norms, it's not a fixed concept.

It's also not something we know anywhere near as much about as we sometimes think, so there's that.

Hecknamistan wrote:

.

Humans adapt to their environment. Put a group of humans in the jungle, they'll learn to live there. Put a human in over-populated cities and force them to make a wage, and they'll learn to survive. It's Capitalism, not human nature, that makes people greedy. It's Capitalism that spawns murderers, thieves, politicians, and the lot. So you're not wrong, but, you know.

Also I'd like to mention the anthropological argument of Proto-Communism argued by James H Morgan, Freidereich Engels (In origin of the family and state), and even more modern Anthropologists such as Richard B Lee: EDIT: actual link isn't showing up just search around for Richard B Lee Primitive Communism and look for the PDF

Ofuria wrote:

1) How could socialism provide work for everybody and how could government ownership of the means of production not lead to oppression?

Not everyone requires work, I make this point first because it becomes important post transition. What is transition you're probably asking? In order for a state to go from capitalism to communism, it has to be transitioned through socialism. In that transition the state maintains the means of production while removing capitalist practices from the society. Eventually, when the state no longer needs to vanguard the means of production, the worker is put in direct control of their workplace. As we saw under the Soviet union, while the state was in control of the means of production, capitalists weren't able to bar individuals from labour. With that, we saw no unemployment in the union. Which further means giving the state the power to hold the means of production is what allowed the Soviet people to find work, as well collectivizing the state allowed the Soviet government to generate more than enough jobs for everyone.

Ofuria wrote:

2) how could socialism be implemented without bloodshed?

One could win socialism via democratic means, however that socialism will have to be limited in it's operation. Without adequate aggression, fascist bandit armies will replace the socialists by force. This was experienced in Chile with Allende's democratic victory, and Pinochet's violent removal of him. This is also seen in more or less ever Socialist uprising, The Americans have been the biggest threat to revolution, going as far as waging open war with a state just to maintain power. Many of those states declared on by the Americans were more than happy to move towards socialism. I will also go ahead and Identify the democratic method as idealist, as under current conditions a war will be inevitable.

Ofuria wrote:

3) How do we combat the point that many workers are happy in their jobs and receive great benefits?

Workers in the west only have benefits because socialists threatened strikes if they didn't receive them. If the mass strikes of the early 1900's didn't happen in America, it's very likely workers would still be working in extremely unsafe conditions, and children would still be legally allowed to labour. We have leftist influence on Progressives to thank for that as well. Although, keep note, Progressives are not left. They're merely Social-Democrats under a different name.

Ofuria wrote:

4) How would a business under socialism work? what’s wrong with worker cooperatives?.

Worker co-ops are socialist. As well we see under the Soviet union (as well as China and all the other attempted states) the individual is still completely allowed to run whatever business they so wish. However they must follow guidelines for how the means of production should be distributed, and in times of strife they might be needed to release their business to aid in the recovery efforts. I don't know exactly how a business would operate under Communism, and as far as I know trying to speculate the specifics falls under utopianism. We should try to be as scientific about things as possible.

Woflines wrote:

What makes you think that humans are inherently greedy? Where do you draw this conclusion from?

If you draw it from today's economic system, you are simply mistaken, because capitalism has existed for only a minute fraction of human existence. The same can be said for any system which has private property, all the way back to slave society; modern humans have existed for ~200 000 years and only in the last 12 000 has any form of private property existed.
If we were to look at society before agriculture, we could conclude that humans are inherently cooperative, as there was simply no place for exploitation, everyone had to work to survive.
The reality is that "human nature" is dependant upon the existing developments and relations of production, and not some static, unchanging set of characteristics of so called "human nature".

proto communism worked during the caveman times of small communitys- back then no tribe would ever excede roughly 100 people, meaning that everyone had to rely on each other, meaning that you couldnt walk over people, as they would no longer co-operate with you, today in our large societys, this is not the case, as you only need a small % of people to help you, out of the whole society, allowing people to unleash their primal need to aquire more without helping everyone.

Greatereurope wrote:

proto communism worked during the caveman times of small communitys- back then no tribe would ever excede roughly 100 people, meaning that everyone had to rely on each other, meaning that you couldnt walk over people, as they would no longer co-operate with you, today in our large societys, this is not the case, as you only need a small % of people to help you, out of the whole society, allowing people to unleash their primal need to acquire more without helping everyone.

The article I cited by Richard B Lee specifically discusses the Iroquois who exceeded several thousand before colonialism.

Greatereurope wrote:

proto communism worked during the caveman times of small communitys- back then no tribe would ever excede roughly 100 people, meaning that everyone had to rely on each other, meaning that you couldnt walk over people, as they would no longer co-operate with you, today in our large societys, this is not the case, as you only need a small % of people to help you, out of the whole society, allowing people to unleash their primal need to aquire more without helping everyone.

Again, where do you get this idea of "primal need" from?
I explained to you before that this idea of human nature is flawed. If we change the relations of production in such a way that this "greed" is no longer a necessity to get by, but in fact becomes a hindrance, it would simply be erased from human relations.
Just as the old relations of the serf who worked the land for the aristocrat vanished after the bourgeoisie overthrew them, so too will the proletarian-capitalist exploitation relations be overthrown this time by the proletarian class.