Ocean Seal
4th March 2012, 16:12
So the other day I was talking to some people, and the discussion went something like this.
Why are you here? Its all about money here.
You could be in North Korea?
North Korea isn't socialist. Value relationships still exist, the working class isn't the ruling class even in name, Juche defies the international conscience of Marxism, and the classics of Marxism can't even be read there.
But North Korea is the most communist of all places in the world. Why don't you go live there?
*I can't believe that I forgot the defense that I came up with on revleft. I guess I'm not that confident off the internet anymore*
It has nothing to do with communism.
Well then there are no countries that have anything to do with socialism
That's not true the Soviet Union had workers control of productive property and as an imperfect revolution we have much to learn from. It degenerated because of a lack of international revolution and by the mid-50's elements of market capitalist construction entered the economy.
Hah the Soviet Union was a shithole.
Where did it start out from? The pride of the capitalist world? Or an underdeveloped feudal country with a 23% literacy rate. And within a few decades they put the first man in space.
And then one other person joined the conversation. First, I had been debating someone who probably had been some kind of comprador capitalist, and then I got the "my family ran away from communism" type to join in (her).
Her: You aren't defending the Soviet Union. The only reason they got to space was because they focused all their resources there.
They also erased starvation, a chronic phenomenon in the Russian Empire.
Him: That's because they gave everyone shit to eat.
*Arrogance of the privileged*
Isn't that better than starving? And what qualifies as "shit"
*I should have told him that not every fucking person can eat filet mignon*
Him: Its not the solution
So while you develop the solution its okay for people to starve. Like the 15 million children who starve to death every year
*Ignores what I have to say*
Him: Production of agriculture in the Soviet Union was destroyed after the Bolsheviks took control. It never reached czarist levels until the 50's.
So it was a bad thing that it became an industrialized republic. And lets not forget that there were some things that devastated the whole world in the period between 1917 and the early 50's.
Her: Anyone who supports the Soviet Union should have had the opportunity to live there.
TLDR:
Basically I found out that the typical capitalist defense goes this way.
You don't believe any nations were socialist? Idealist.
You believe that some were? Horrible person
Socialist nation xyz did something good? Its because they focused all their resources in science, healthcare, housing, etc.
If the socialists are focusing all of their resources in healthcare, food, infrastructure, housing, science, etc. Where are the capitalists focusing their resources.
Why are you here? Its all about money here.
You could be in North Korea?
North Korea isn't socialist. Value relationships still exist, the working class isn't the ruling class even in name, Juche defies the international conscience of Marxism, and the classics of Marxism can't even be read there.
But North Korea is the most communist of all places in the world. Why don't you go live there?
*I can't believe that I forgot the defense that I came up with on revleft. I guess I'm not that confident off the internet anymore*
It has nothing to do with communism.
Well then there are no countries that have anything to do with socialism
That's not true the Soviet Union had workers control of productive property and as an imperfect revolution we have much to learn from. It degenerated because of a lack of international revolution and by the mid-50's elements of market capitalist construction entered the economy.
Hah the Soviet Union was a shithole.
Where did it start out from? The pride of the capitalist world? Or an underdeveloped feudal country with a 23% literacy rate. And within a few decades they put the first man in space.
And then one other person joined the conversation. First, I had been debating someone who probably had been some kind of comprador capitalist, and then I got the "my family ran away from communism" type to join in (her).
Her: You aren't defending the Soviet Union. The only reason they got to space was because they focused all their resources there.
They also erased starvation, a chronic phenomenon in the Russian Empire.
Him: That's because they gave everyone shit to eat.
*Arrogance of the privileged*
Isn't that better than starving? And what qualifies as "shit"
*I should have told him that not every fucking person can eat filet mignon*
Him: Its not the solution
So while you develop the solution its okay for people to starve. Like the 15 million children who starve to death every year
*Ignores what I have to say*
Him: Production of agriculture in the Soviet Union was destroyed after the Bolsheviks took control. It never reached czarist levels until the 50's.
So it was a bad thing that it became an industrialized republic. And lets not forget that there were some things that devastated the whole world in the period between 1917 and the early 50's.
Her: Anyone who supports the Soviet Union should have had the opportunity to live there.
TLDR:
Basically I found out that the typical capitalist defense goes this way.
You don't believe any nations were socialist? Idealist.
You believe that some were? Horrible person
Socialist nation xyz did something good? Its because they focused all their resources in science, healthcare, housing, etc.
If the socialists are focusing all of their resources in healthcare, food, infrastructure, housing, science, etc. Where are the capitalists focusing their resources.