purahna

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's still money. It's just pegged to something besides a bar of gold.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

you are in over your head if you think replacing a currency with a different currency pegged to the value of labor is communist. Socialist, maybe, communist, not even a little.

This document is very dated and fairly simplistic but it's a good 101 basis for what we believe. Just so we're speaking eye to eye, go read this (it's very short and light reading, don't worry), then come back, and use this definition of communism. It's the definition that communists actually use and it'll do you well to know your enemy before you pick fights with them.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm jk the Manifesto is more relevant here, a little less short and substantially more dense but if you're gonna argue with Marxists about Marxism you should probably read the 23 page pamphlet that Marx is actually famous for https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

We didn't invade them because of mutually assured destruction. We did proxy war them, espionage them, propagandize them, sanction them, embargo them, engage in brinkmanship with them, send blank checks to their enemies, sabotage them, and more, and all of NATO was of a one track mind in doing so.

Was the USSR so weak it was unable to be self-sufficient on the world stage? No, the USSR was so strong that starting from a mean 27 year life expectancy and zero productive infrastructure, it was able to survive this onslaught for nearly a century, and while doing so, put the first human in space, achieve world-class technological innovation, gender equality, literacy rates, and more.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  1. click into the source please (or at least read the URL), he tried to resign 4 separate times and every single time the motion was even entertained he was voted to stay unanimously, once even by Trotsky's delegation.

  2. if you want to turn this into "your sources are fabricated", well then, no YOU, and with that, we're done here. I've seen this play out too many times to bother with it again.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/

VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!

MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Because every single other dominant power teamed up more thoroughly than they had ever done prior or since for the sole purpose of ratfucking them down to every last brick and feasting on the carcass?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, it's so fucked up that Stalin stole all those poor Kulaks' grain and put it in a big swimming pool so that he and his cabinet could swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it blows my mind the lengths that online rightists will go to to defend literally burning food during a famine. Why?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I literally said "liquidating you as a class" as a possible retaliation. "Gulags" is not a gotcha, if you hoard or destroy food during a famine you are committing murder and you need to be stopped for the good of society.

By the way, the US prison population today is higher than the Gulag population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak. I'd sure as hell rather see gulags full of reactionaries and food-burners than full of drug users and the chronically unemployed. I'm curious, why do you prefer the latter?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry, I think this is just a grammatical confusion, let me fix it:

socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything.

I'll go edit the original comment for clarity

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, can you elaborate? I'm not advocating making laws about what people are allowed to think, but I'm not sure that's what you mean

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you're growing food for your family, then that's just one family the state doesn't have to feed. If you're growing food for your community, then that's several mouths the state doesn't have to feed. If you're hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.

view more: ‹ prev next ›