Shortages in the USSR

[Psy]

So why did the USSR always have shortages of commodities? From the NEP years when you had the scissors crisis right up to the end. It seems the USSR had enough industrial capacity. How much did the military suck out of the productive forces, how much was due to mismanagement and waste?

How hard it had been for workers to straighten out the situation in the USSR if they took power in the late 80's/early 90's

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:31 pm
So why did the USSR always have shortages of commodities? From the NEP years when you had the scissors crisis right up to the end. It seems the USSR had enough industrial capacity. How much did the military suck out of the productive forces, how much was due to mismanagement and waste?

How hard it had been for workers to straighten out the situation in the USSR if they took power in the late 80's/early 90's
The shortages weren't always as bad as people think. These started to become a problem with the economic reforms toward capitalism introduced by Khruschev and continued through to Gorbachev, but I will get to that later. One first has to remember that the USSR came from a very backward, non-industrial nation. Before you can start producing a lot of consumer goods, you need to have the material basis to produce it, which is why heavy industry was built first.

A major problem is that Kruschev's reforms were something akin to NEP, but brought forth as something more permanent than temporary. The central planning structure was at first dismantled, but then resurrected with no real power or influence. Enterprises were spread out throughout the USSR, often located in different SSR's, and they had very little infrastructure to connect them. That alone led to the rise of new "NEP men", middle men who knew how to get the resources each enterprise needed.

A good source about this is Toward the New Socialism. You can download this for free at my blog.

Sadly, there was little the workers or anyone could have done in the 90's. Along with the political reversal in 1956, political education and awareness was distorted and reduced. Today, I have yet to meet one Russian who can properly explain what proletariat means. This includes those who lived through that time. One such individual believed that socialism meant one could not have a washing machine on ideological grounds- she had no knowledge of the difference between personal and private property.

[Marsella]

The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.

No of course not!

The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to 'glorious socialism!'

:lol:

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:02 am

The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.

No of course not!

The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to 'glorious socialism!'

:lol:
You seem to completely misunderstand the conditions existent.

[Marsella]

You seem to completely misunderstand the conditions existent.

Of course!

I should have mentioned that it was the UFOs that abducted them.

Sorry for my lack of material understanding! :(

And please, enlighten me with your knowledge of the 'conditions existent' in the 1932-33 famine, which may somehow 'explain away' that mass starvation.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 pm
The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to 'glorious socialism!'
What was "Ukrainian" in that famine?

We don't have to repeat each and all idiocy of the far-right simply because there are websites promoting them!

Luís Henrique

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Martov, you should look into things instead of just accepting right-wing propaganda. On the issue you bring up, read: Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm)

[Panda Tse Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 pm

The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.

No of course not!

The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to 'glorious socialism!'

:lol:
Thats fabricated bull-shit. There is no sustainable evidence for that. The only evidence given is lame estimations based on thin air and photographs from WW1 and the Russian Civil war. Ohw wait, the Ukrainian 'holocaust' never occurred during these periods of time... how odd... Maybe that is because it's... fabricated?
To be more exact it was fabricated by Nazi's. But I'm not going into this any deeper since you don't seem to provide too much additional information that needs to be refuted. Thereby giving me no incentive whatsoever to make a broad analyses of the situation.

[Marsella]

What was "Ukrainian" in that famine?

I think I have lost you. May you explain your meaning further?

It is commonly referred to as the Ukrainian famine, is it not?


We don't have to repeat each and all idiocy of the far-right simply because there are websites promoting them!

It is not idiotic, not rightist, to attack the Stalinist regime's hand in that sorry affair.


Martov, you should look into things instead of just accepting right-wing propaganda. On the issue you bring up, read: Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard

a) It is not right-wing propaganda if I attack a Stalinist regime's policies.

b) I will look into the matter more closely if you think that all is not what it seems.

But I quote from the source you referenced:


'The mass collectivization of agriculture and an ambitious industrialization plan were the central features of the first five year plans launched in 1929. Collectivization met with active opposition from sections of the peasantry, and in many areas struggle approached the scale of civil war. Drought (a complicating factor), widespread sabotage, amateurishly soviet planning, Stalinist excess and mistakes caused the famine of 1932-33'

That is not to mention the Soviet Unions refusal of assistance to the Ukrainian nation.

Now, you seem to think that I have labelled it a Genocide? Well I never said such. And I understand that the Nationalists in Ukraine have used that argument.

But simply recognising the Ukrainian famine does not automatically mean you support such arguments too.

Now, my attack was in the arrogant remark that 'The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.'

Because they certainly fucking were if 7,000,000 perished!

[Panda Tse Tung]

Look, there's a difference between stating there was a famine. Which nobody denies and that '7 million Ukrainians died'.



Because they certainly fucking were if 7,000,000 perished!

Ok, why not. I'm going to explain how the capie's got to that statistic. There we're two researchers. They picked 3 items. Item 1, population of 1930 Ukraine. Item 2, estimated population of 1940 Ukraine. Item 3, real population of 1940 Ukraine. So, what did they do?
They just picked the difference between the estimated population and the real population. Completely ignoring that a huge part of Ukraine was transfered to the Russian Soviet Republic (for it's high proportion of Russians living there) which already explains 2 million 'victims'. And next to that it is completely ignoring all sorts of other conditions. Do you call this science? I know i don't...

[Marsella]

Thats fabricated bull-shit. There is no sustainable evidence for that. The only evidence given is lame estimations based on thin air and photographs from WW1 and the Russian Civil war. Ohw wait, the Ukrainian 'holocaust' never occurred during these periods of time... how odd... Maybe that is because it's... fabricated?

On the contrary, even the Soviet archives recognise a famine which caused, in their estimates, over three million deaths.


To be more exact it was fabricated by Nazi's. But I'm not going into this any deeper since you don't seem to provide too much additional information that needs to be refuted. Thereby giving me no incentive whatsoever to make a broad analyses of the situation.

By the Nazis?

If anything, the Soviets attempted to keep the affair silent.

I find it extremely arrogant of yourself to simply argue that the whole thing was fabricated. It shows a complete disregard of human suffering as well as historical evidence.

Edit:


Look, there's a difference between stating there was a famine. Which nobody denies and that '7 million Ukrainians died'.

Okay, now I understand your meaning and I retract my last comment: you were arguing the numbers were incorrect.

Well mainly sources argue that 7 million died. But I have not analyzed the exact numbers or the methods of how they obtained such numbers.

Evidently there is a difference between the methods of calculation and I accept that 7 million may not be the correct figure.

But at the very least millions died, thus my original argument stands: the shortages were as bad as people think.

[Panda Tse Tung]

On the contrary, even the Soviet archives recognise a famine which caused, in their estimates, over three million deaths.

That was nation-wide and a result of all sorts of conditions. Epidemics (the USSR WAS a third world country) and a real famine which was nation-wide. That famine was caused by the kulaks, google it if you don't know what those are.



By the Nazis?

If anything, the Soviets attempted to keep the affair silent.

Hearst-company published the first story, at the time heavily financed by the Nazi's. This does not make it de-facto un-reliable, the reporter that made the story later turned out to be an escaped criminal working on an alias. During his trial he acknowledged that he had never even been to the Ukraine, and the pictures we're taken from WW1 and the Russian Civil War archive.



I find it extremely arrogant of yourself to simply argue that the whole thing was fabricated. It shows a complete disregard of human suffering as well as historical evidence.

So, every time someone fabricates a story about human suffering we should just believe it?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:43 pm

What was "Ukrainian" in that famine?

I think I have lost you. May you explain your meaning further?

It is commonly referred to as the Ukrainian famine, is it not?
If so, it is wrongly referred as such.

This is a name invented by those who try to equate Stalin's dictatorship to Hitler's*: Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews? Well, Stalin tried to wipe out the... the... let's see.. the Ukrainians!

There was a huge famine in the Soviet Union in the early 30's - affecting Ukraine, European Russia, Georgia, Bielorussia, Kazakhstan. So there was never anything specifically Ukrainian about it.


It is not idiotic, not rightist, to attack the Stalinist regime's hand in that sorry affair.

There are enough real reasons to attack the Stalinist regime - we don't have to fall for one that is fabricated by the Ukrainian ultra-right.

* and who are these? Ukrainian nazi collaboracionists, for the most part.

Luís Henrique

[Panda Tse Tung]

Okay, now I understand your meaning and I retract my last comment: you were arguing the numbers were incorrect.


Not just that, but that it wasn't specifically targeted towards the Ukrainians either (the nation-wide famine that is)

Edit: it wasn't even specifically targeted towards anyone. It was just a famine, caused by the Kulaks. Not even the Soviet-regime itself...

[Marsella]

This is a name invented by those who try to equate Stalin's dictatorship to Hitler's*: Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews? Well, Stalin tried to wipe out the... the... let's see.. the Ukrainians!

I don't think I was doing anything of the kind!

But these statistics apply to Ukaraine, so it is perfectly legitimate to term it the Ukrainian famine. And just because people have referred to it as a Ukrainian famine in the past in the hope of linking it to Nazis, does not mean that was my aim or indeed not a famine.

The Ukrainian genoicide on the other hand has specific correlations to Nazi Germany - and I haven't used that term.


There was a huge famine in the Soviet Union in the early 30's - affecting Ukraine, European Russia, Georgia, Bielorussia, Kazakhstan. So there was never anything specifically Ukrainian about it.

True but once again, the main losses probably occurred in Ukraine. And I was referring to the Ukrainian famine after all.


There are enough real reasons to attack the Stalinist regime - we don't have to fall for one that is fabricated by the Ukrainian ultra-right.

Quite true.


That was nation-wide and a result of all sorts of conditions. Epidemics (the USSR WAS a third world country) and a real famine which was nation-wide. That famine was caused by the kulaks, google it if you don't know what those are.

Caused by Kulaks?

I don't think it is as simple as that. The causes were diverse as I outlined above.


Hearst-company published the first story, at the time heavily financed by the Nazi's. This does not make it de-facto un-reliable, the reporter that made the story later turned out to be an escaped criminal working on an alias. During his trial he acknowledged that he had never even been to the Ukraine, and the pictures we're taken from WW1 and the Russian Civil War archive.

Interesting, but I scarcely based my judgement on pictures taken from WW1 or the Russian Civil War archive.


So, every time someone fabricates a story about human suffering we should just believe it?

But my point is exactly that it did occur.

Just perhaps not on the numbers that I originally thought.

So it was not fabricated, but possibly exaggerated.

But forgive me, but 3,000,000 starved is a horrific number nonetheless.

[Panda Tse Tung]

By calling it the 'Ukrainian famine' you are suggesting that it was a famine that was specifically aimed at the Ukrainian population, which is not true. The Soviet-archives btw state that 700,000 died nation-wide. It is a lot, yes. It is horrible, yes. But it is not the direct fault of the Soviet-government nor was it specifically targeted towards the Ukrainians.



Caused by Kulaks?

I don't think it is as simple as that. The causes were diverse as I outlined above.

They we're the major reason. Yes. They burned crops, murdered cattle, etc... etc... out of anger for the de-kulakization and the collectivization process.

[Marsella]

By calling it the 'Ukrainian famine' you are suggesting that it was a famine that was specifically aimed at the Ukrainian population, which is not true.

No I don't believe that correlation.

Like most people I believe that the Ukrainian famine simply means *surprise* that it occurred in Ukraine.

What should it be called?

And I might also note that the 2004 book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft gives a best estimate of around 5.5 to 6.5 million deaths in the Soviet-wide 1932-1933 famine.


But it is not the direct fault of the Soviet-government nor was it specifically targeted towards the Ukrainians.

That I think is a decent summary of the main causes of the famine.


Drought (a complicating factor), widespread sabotage, amateurishly soviet planning, Stalinist excess and mistakes caused the famine of 1932-33

To simply argue that the Kulaks were responsible because of slaughtering their own animals or sabotaging their crops would ignore why they did such.

And that was a response, as you stated, to collectivization which was carried out by the Soviet Regime.

And of course it would ignore the drought and the discontent of the peasant class against the severe Soviet policies and purges too.

[black magick hustla]

Are deaths from a famine caused by the stupidity and incompetence of the regime (such deaths account for more than half of Courtois's 100 million) to be equated with the deliberate gassing of Jews? Courtois's arithmetic is too simple. A huge number of the fatalities attributed here to Communist regimes fall into a kind of catchall category called "excess deaths": premature demises, over and above the expected mortality rate of the population, that resulted directly or indirectly from government policy. Those executed, exiled to Siberia, or forced into gulag camps where nutrition and living conditions were poor could fall into this category. But so could many others, and "excess deaths" are not the same as intentional deaths....It would be more polemical than accurate to equate famine deaths, victims of police terror, and deaths in Nazi gas chambers with the plight of Russians unable to buy food and health care today. One could place many of the century's deaths in any of several categories, according to the political point one wanted to make. Should we blame premature deaths in Russia today on the legacy of communism or on the failed policies of reformers? For how many deaths under Stalin should we blame communism? Stalin's personal paranoia? Backwardness or ignorance? We might do better to try to understand these grisly statistics in their contexts, rather than positing large polemical categories and then filling them up with bodies. Good history is about balanced interpretation and is usually more complicated than categorisation or blame.



J arch Getty

The famine may have been product of the regime but saying it was in "purpose" is terrible history-

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Like most people I believe that the Ukrainian famine simply means *surprise* that it occurred in Ukraine.
Well - that's false. It didn't occur in Ukraine; it did occur in the whole European part of the Soviet Union, plus Kazakhstan.

There wasn't an "Ukrainian famine", just like there wasn't a Russian famine or a Bielorussian famine. Nor there were separate famines in each of the republics; it was a general famine. Calling it "Ukrainian Famine" has to do with a particular political agenda - that of Ukrainian nationalism. I am not accusing one of being an Ukrainian nationalist, of course; but you should stop using that name.


What should it be called?

The Soviet Famine? The 1933 Famine in the Soviet Union? The Collectivisation Famine?

Not "the Ukrainian Famine", in any case.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:49 pm
The famine may have been product of the regime but saying it was in "purpose" is terrible history-
There is an interesting exercise that can be done easily.

Find the statistics for infant mortality for China and India - two countries with roughly the same GNP per capita, and a huge population.

If the infant mortality in one of those two countries is significantly bigger, meaning that several million more children die in one of them each yera, does it mean that there is an ongoing genocide there?

Why, or why not?

Luís Henrique

[Marsella]

Well - that's false. It didn't occur in Ukraine; it did occur in the whole European part of the Soviet Union, plus Kazakhstan.

There wasn't an "Ukrainian famine", just like there wasn't a Russian famine or a Bielorussian famine. Nor there were separate famines in each of the republics; it was a general famine. Calling it "Ukrainian Famine" has to do with a particular political agenda - that of Ukrainian nationalism. I am not accusing one of being an Ukrainian nationalist, of course; but you should stop using that name.

Hmm it does seem to be rather pedantic about names, but I can understand your reasoning and it is hard to deny.

My objection would be that Ukraine was a seperate republic of course under the USSR, and when applying statistics I was applying them to the Ukraine region, so it made sense to call it the Ukrainian famine.

But you raise an interesting point on what to name it...

You can't call it simply the USSR famine because, presumably, the famine occurred outside of the USSR correct?

But then simply calling it the 1933 famine isn't very specific at all.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:00 am
Hmm it does seem to be rather pedantic about names, but I can understand your reasoning and it is hard to deny.
For instance, if someone calls the American Civil War "War between the States", doesn't it ring a bell about a political agenda?

And in this case, well, it was a war, and it was between the States...


You can't call it simply the USSR famine because, presumably, the famine occurred outside of the USSR correct?

As far as I know, it occurred in the Soviet Union, and if it affected some other country, it was as a result of the Soviet famine.


But then simply calling it the 1933 famine isn't very specific at all.

I suggest the Collectivisation Famine.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected]November 02, 2007 04:26 pm

You seem to completely misunderstand the conditions existent.

Of course!

I should have mentioned that it was the UFOs that abducted them.

Sorry for my lack of material understanding! :(

And please, enlighten me with your knowledge of the 'conditions existent' in the 1932-33 famine, which may somehow 'explain away' that mass starvation.
Martov--

the problem with your arguments (as acknowledged not only only myself but my fellow comrades here)-- the basis for your arguments are usually claims of the far-right (especially your arguments in regards to the USSR). If you want to make an argument, at least make it out of a valid claim aside from what is said from a perspective which is obviously opposing revolutionary movement and efforts towards attaining communist society.

[Panda Tse Tung]

And I might also note that the 2004 book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft gives a best estimate of around 5.5 to 6.5 million deaths in the Soviet-wide 1932-1933 famine

So you read a book with an estimate... jippy. So, how did they reach this number? What research-methods did they use?



To simply argue that the Kulaks were responsible because of slaughtering their own animals or sabotaging their crops would ignore why they did such.

And that was a response, as you stated, to collectivization which was carried out by the Soviet Regime.

And of course it would ignore the drought and the discontent of the peasant class against the severe Soviet policies and purges too.

I already stated why. And it was certainly not beceause of some internal party-purge...
Policies, why of course... the policy of collectivication and de-kulakization... Obviously they disagreed with more then just that, but thats not the reason they did it because it never directy affected them. And yes, it was the main reason the famine DID occur.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's an interesting 1966 article:

From "Land and Bread" to the State Farm (http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/63-3-1.shtml)


In the dynamic slogan "land and bread to the peasantry" Lenin found the spark to solidify the support of the peasantry for the Bolshevik Revolution. In the expropriation of the land and its distribution among the peasantry, however, an established large-scale agricultural system was broken up into an atomistic order of small-scale operations. Almost a third of the farming area in European Russia consisted of large holdings operated by landowners, the Church, and the State. This productive sector yielded most of the marketable farm products, was the fountain-head for the source of breed-improving livestock and superior plant varieties, and the center of advanced technology and progressive farm management. In addition, a good number of estates operated ancillary industries: distilleries, processing plants for farm products, and building material supplies, which, supplied
stability to farm employment. The whole thrust of Russian agricultural history demonstrated the productive superiority of large-scale estate farming over the small peasant holdings and the Bolsheviks faced an ideological dilemma. With the
nationalization of the land and the liquidation of large landholdings, the clamor of the peasantry for complete distribution of the land had to be satiated. This process had priority and was carried out impulsively by the seizure of land, cattle and equipment by local peasant masses. At the same time, in order to salvage the productive assets of some of the estates and provide immediate sources of foodstuffs, the Soviets organized socialist enterprises, the Soviet state farms.

...

The development of Soviet state farms since the Revolution covers three distinct periods: [1] the period from 1918 to 1927 covering the Civil War to the end of the NEP period; [2] the mighty sovkhoz revival concurrent with mass collectivization when the concept of "factories in the field" became the slogan and then was followed by a gradual period of disenchantment (1935) which continued to the end of the Stalin era; [3] the great upsurge of the sovkhoz system from 1954 on to the present period. This latter decade will be the principal concern of this paper.

...

A series of poor harvests, mounting operating deficits, breakdowns in labor discipline set the stage for a series of investigations and worker trials in the system in the early 'thirties. Scapegoats were found and the responsibility placed on class enemies. In a more critical issue, credit must be given to the sovkhozy, however, in that they were still able to feed their workers during the 1932-33 famine in the affected areas of southern Russia. The starvation was confined to members of the collective farms and among the remaining private peasants.

...

There is am uninterrupted rise in the number of state farms since the sovkhozization drive began and a corresponding decline in the number of collective farms, or a 1:3 ratio between the two systems at present. The share of the socialized cropland farmed by the state farms has stabilized at a 44 percent level. This may appear as
excessive but the sovkhozy are heavily concentrated in grain growing where the spatial dimensions of the grain farms is apparent. Nonetheless, the cropland farmed by the collectives has declined by 15 percent since 1958.



And since part of the discussion has veered towards the subject of a "certain" famine, I continue to stand by my controversial position (surprisingly, nobody has yet screamed at me for what I said):

Ukrainian famine of 1932-33, Failure of collectivization? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66674)


I hate to be politically controversial even here, but the peasants sure acted like suicide bombers. BOTH sides are to blame: the government for its kolkhozization over sovkhozization (directly state-owned, industrial farms), and the peasantry per below.

Modern suicide bombers, as you know, kill themselves and try to kill others nearby. Everyone also knows that, if you deliberately attempt to destroy your cattle and burn your produce instead of turning it over or filing a grievance with the local party official, your actions could potentially starve those in the cities who need that food.

The peasants knew that destroying their cattle and burning their produce would result in bureaucratic retaliation, but they should've known (if they didn't) that their actions constituted an act against urban workers.

[syndicat]

That famine was caused by the kulaks, google it if you don't know what those are.

this is not plausible. the kulaks had been reduced by 1922 to only 0.7% of the peasant population. but they were used as a scapegoat by the Communist leadership.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:43 pm
And I might also note that the 2004 book The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933 by R.W. Davies and S.G. Wheatcroft gives a best estimate of around 5.5 to 6.5 million deaths in the Soviet-wide 1932-1933 famine.
For the best scholarly material there is on the subject, I suggest the work of professor Mark Tauger. Most of his articles can be found online at his website:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/soviet.htm

Tauger goes above and beyond Tottle in refuting the Ukrainian genocide myth. Davies and Wheatcroft (both excellent scholars) reference Tauger's work a lot. In short, the famine was not the result of Kulak resistence, inefficient collectivization methods, or a terror campaign. The primary responsibility lies with the weather. Nature caused the famines, not man.

This idea of the genocide-famine has been so thorougly trashed not even Robert Conquest, author of the work Tottle so thoroughly refutes, maintains the thesis anymore. This much Conquest has admitted in an exchange with Davies and Wheatcroft ("Debate: Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman" Europe-Asia Studies_, vol. 58, No. 4, June 2006, pp.629).

Those still upholding the idea are the Ukrainian Nationalist community, and assorted anti-communists whose hatred of the USSR makes it impossible to let go of a favorite weapon to bash socialism with.

I also recommend Silver and Anderson's discussion of demography as it applies to the USSR. See their article Demographic Analysis and Population Catastrophes in the USSR, Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 517-536. I think you'll find the idea of saying "X number of people died in the USSR" is not as concrete as you may think.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 pm

The shortages weren't always as bad as people think.

No of course not!

The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to 'glorious socialism!'

:lol:
Too bad the famine was due to natural causes, and there has never been any demographic evidence to support anything near 7 million deaths huh? Next time do some research. http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/soviet.htm

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Is there no event in history that Martov can't fuck up some how? He claims that the Soviet Government refused to help famine-stricken areas. That's really funny because it turns out that massive amounts of aid were given to the Ukraine during this time- all of it documented. In addition to this, Soviet demographic records show 2.2 million excess deaths during that time, 1.5 million in Ukraine, due to all causes. So where did that funny 3 million number come from?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:31 pm
So why did the USSR always have shortages of commodities? From the NEP years when you had the scissors crisis right up to the end. It seems the USSR had enough industrial capacity. How much did the military suck out of the productive forces, how much was due to mismanagement and waste?

How hard it had been for workers to straighten out the situation in the USSR if they took power in the late 80's/early 90's
The early USSR was suffering from the aftermath of a brutal civil war, largely provoked by a far more powerful enemy - nearly two dozen imperialist armies.

The Stalinist USSR had things carried out bureaucratically from above, with no real correspondence between various sectors, nor was there any kind of democratic plan. You essentially had Moscow bureaucrats making decisions for those living in Vladivostok, for instance, to a degree (Vladivostok is far to the East in Russia, at least several thousand kilometers away.).

The bureaucrat only cares about meeting the quota. In the instance of a surplus of a non-perishable product, this often would amount to stashing the surplus product away. This surplus perhaps was not always a true surplus, given the shortages, and therefore, needed non-perishable products were stashed away. In the instance of a shortage in a future quota, the previous surplus would be taken out to meet the new quota.

The consumer knows exactly what he/she needs and what a good quality is. The consumer also consequently knows his/her own needs. Put forth according to a democratic plan, production carried out by the consumers themselves would lead to an immense development of the productive forces (far beyond what the USSR achieved.) and the elimination of shortages, low grade goods, and unemployment.

Only workers' democracy could have eliminated such shortages, as the consumer is the ultimate producer, as production is then carried out according to the interests of the consumer in a democratic fashion.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Sorry but that doesn't correspond to reality. Looks like someone needs to read Getty and Furr.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:37 am
this is not plausible. the kulaks had been reduced by 1922 to only 0.7% of the peasant population. but they were used as a scapegoat by the Communist leadership.
Only they did own a huge proportion of all rural land. Really, how is it not plausible?
Do you even know what the fuck a kulak is?
Cause then you would know they are the owners of vast amounts of land, hired labor, etc... etc...

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. 2+November 08, 2007 11:30 am--> (No. 2 @ November 08, 2007 11:30 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:37 am
this is not plausible. the kulaks had been reduced by 1922 to only 0.7% of the peasant population. but they were used as a scapegoat by the Communist leadership.
Only they did own a huge proportion of all rural land. Really, how is it not plausible?
Do you even know what the fuck a kulak is?
Cause then you would know they are the owners of vast amounts of land, hired labor, etc... etc... [/b]
Wrong. Kulaks were landowners (i.e., landlords) in general, not necessarily large landowners or landowners who hired labor. The misconception is that there were poor landowners or landlords...which may be true, but compared to the peasantry who did not own any of the land they worked on, they were much better off. Hence why they got the reputation of being rich and wealthy.

You need to look into the history of that term before claiming to know what it means.

Here ya go: Link (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/k/u.htm#kulaks)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 08, 2007 11:30 am
Do you even know what the fuck a kulak is?
Kulaki are rich peasants.

Luís Henrique

[Panda Tse Tung]

The point stands, they owned huge proportions of the land. *sigh* Now i factually have to provide a source of course... but i gotta work in like 6 hours and i haven't had any sleep. So i'll just leave that one open for today. And just stroll through the rest of revleft for now :).

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:31 pm
So why did the USSR always have shortages of commodities?
They didn't ''always'' had shortages. They also had overproduction. The shortages in general were the result of the centrally planned economy. The state didn't knew what exactly was the demand of each comodity, they just guessed that the demand of toilet paper was say 20.000.000 toiler papers/month and they produced it.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yes cause thats how centrally planned economy's work. They don't calculate what the amount of consumption in the previous year was at all. Silly central economists...

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 10, 2007 11:44 am
Yes cause thats how centrally planned economy's work. They don't calculate what the amount of consumption in the previous year was at all. Silly central economists...
They do. That's the problem. They calculate the consumption of the previous year.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yes, and?
Consumption seldomly rises at significant levels and if you see a consistent rise over the course of a couple of years you can adjust your system to it. So, what would be your suggestion for a functioning non-utopic economic system.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 11, 2007 09:22 pm
Yes, and?
Consumption seldomly rises at significant levels and if you see a consistent rise over the course of a couple of years you can adjust your system to it.
Yeah, and before you do that people will just have to deal with not being able to clothe themselves, or feed themselves, or...etc.


So, what would be your suggestion for a functioning non-utopic economic system.

Given the amount of statistics and figures that are able to be put together these days by use of computer-technology and other means, it can easily be calculated by about how much the need for a certain commodity will rise.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that scarcity should be gotten rid of, which means that there should be an overproduction of goods, not a "planned controlled production", because that would be thinking inside the bounds of a scarcity based economic system.

The problem with the USSR was that it was never able to overcome scarcity, the material conditions required for a socialist economic system...and the reason it couldn't overcome that is because you need to have co-operation on a global level to achieve that.

It is utopian to believe that a single nation, no matter how big it is or how many resources it has, can overcome scarcity on its own. If even the most advanced capitalist nation today, the United States, is not advanced enough materially to overcome scarcity on its own, how could any other nation be?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

The problem here is that nobody is noticing that the Soviet Union underwent a trend of decentralization beginning in the Khruschev era, and it was this decentralization without coordination that led to shortages on a massive scale. Central planning and decentralization are not necessarily inherently bad; this issue is communication. Modern day technology makes it easier to have a relatively decentralized planned economy, without the problems of regionalism and personal fiefdoms.

For a description of using modern technology to coordinate central planning, I recommend Cotrell and Cockshot's Toward the New Socialism, which can be found for free on my blog(look in the links). Incidentily the Allende government in Chile had developed a similar system in the 70s, but the Pinochet regime burried it(literally).

[RedArmyFaction]

The problem with Communism is that as a result of state control of heavy industry, workers lose the incentive to boost up production rates because they know, they won't get a bonus. They won't get paid more for doing more work. Therefore the economy collapses. These are these are tools of the capitalist.

USSR made up 1/8th of the total land mass.............so therefore they had plenty of natural resources such as oil and metals. They had no real excuse to be short of commodities.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:07 pm
The problem with Communism is that as a result of state control of heavy industry, workers lose the incentive to boost up production rates because they know, they won't get a bonus. They won't get paid more for doing more work. Therefore the economy collapses. These are these are tools of the capitalist.

USSR made up 1/8th of the total land mass.............so therefore they had plenty of natural resources such as oil and metals. They had no real excuse to be short of commodities.
There is no state or wages in a communist society so I don't know what you're talking about.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 16, 2007 07:08 pm

There is no state or wages in a communist society so I don't know what you're talking about. [/quote]
I ment Socialism not Communism

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 11:07 am
They didn't ''always'' had shortages. They also had overproduction. The shortages in general were the result of the centrally planned economy. The state didn't knew what exactly was the demand of each comodity, they just guessed that the demand of toilet paper was say 20.000.000 toiler papers/month and they produced it.
An additional factor, one that I don't believe has been mentioned, was the artificially low prices of most/all consumer goods. The absence of market mechanisms ensured that, along with everything else, inflation had to be manually adjusted. For a variety of reasons this was a problematic issue and the end result was that the retail price of most consumables remained far too low. Attempts to correct this with periodic increases often ran into difficulties - note the 1970 riots in Poland (that led to the fall of Gomułka) that accompanied a large readjustment of food prices.

With prices being kept so low it was not surprising that demand soared and shortages resulted. Imagine if Armani suddenly began selling suits for €10 and you have a similar scenario. This, coupled with the difficulty in forecasting demand, was the major cause of the shortages in the planned economy

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:07 pm
USSR made up 1/8th of the total land mass.............so therefore they had plenty of natural resources such as oil and metals. They had no real excuse to be short of commodities.
Aside from the fact that Russia had one of the most primitive transportation networks in the world.

Having resources means shit when there's no way to extract and supply those resources to your cities.

And by the time of the post-Stalin epoch, after Stalin developed most of the USSR's infrastructure, the system had been gummed up with revisionism, bureucracy, corruption----the Khrushchev-Brezhnev problems in other words.

Most problems regarding shortages would have been solved, or at least mitigated, had the USSR made the appropriate strides towards Communism, rather than Brezhnev corruption.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yeah, and before you do that people will just have to deal with not being able to clothe themselves, or feed themselves, or...etc.

The USSR was a third world country. In current day society, such statistics could easily be determined. Since you we're talking about a future situation.



Given the amount of statistics and figures that are able to be put together these days by use of computer-technology and other means, it can easily be calculated by about how much the need for a certain commodity will rise.

Yes, and the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known.



Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that scarcity should be gotten rid of, which means that there should be an overproduction of goods, not a "planned controlled production", because that would be thinking inside the bounds of a scarcity based economic system.

Basic economics, overproducing goods would cause huge economic problems. No matter how lacking scarcity may be. Besides that we have to keep in mind that 'overproduction' isn't even our biggest issue. The biggest issue is feeding, educating and providing other basic services towards the vast majority of the world.
Really, study it. A good dutch book on basic-economics would be 'de verwording van de economie' and specifically Marxist would be 'leerboek politieke economie'.
I'm too lazy to even explain how it would cause more nay's then jay's.



The problem with the USSR was that it was never able to overcome scarcity, the material conditions required for a socialist economic system...and the reason it couldn't overcome that is because you need to have co-operation on a global level to achieve that.

How odd, a third world country that did never overcome scarcity in the 80 years it had! The pigs... they must be fake socialists!
Besides that the USSR had all resources needed to sustain itself without any help from the outside world. Making this 'theory' un-applicable to given circumstances.



It is utopian to believe that a single nation, no matter how big it is or how many resources it has, can overcome scarcity on its own. If even the most advanced capitalist nation today, the United States, is not advanced enough materially to overcome scarcity on its own, how could any other nation be?

Because the U.S. has almost no resources and merely parasites on the rest of the world...
It's completely different situations.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 16, 2007 10:06 pm
The USSR was a third world country. In current day society, such statistics could easily be determined. Since you we're talking about a future situation.
It doesn't matter, a single nation would not be able to fulfill every need of its citizens.

Calculating how many of what commodity people need without being able to provide it can be reduced to mere mental masturbation on the issue.

And no, the USSR wasn't a "third world country", it was considered to be part of the "second world", though the whole "theory" of separating countries into first, second and third is stupid and pointless to begin with.


Yes, and the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known.

No it didn't. Computer technology primarily arose in Germany, the UK and US, and the latter two had the most advanced technology in that field up to today.

Anyway it doesn't matter since you just contradicted yourself, you just said the USSR was a third world country unable to calculate it for that reason, and then you go on to say it has the most advanced computers, suggesting it was able to do this...

It doesn't really matter though; both positions are wrong.


Basic economics, overproducing goods would cause huge economic problems.

You are looking at the issue within the context of capitalism, and yes, you are right, within that context it would create huge economic problems.

The whole premise of a communist system is based on a abundance of production.

I suggest you read some basic works on Marxism.


No matter how lacking scarcity may be. Besides that we have to keep in mind that 'overproduction' isn't even our biggest issue. The biggest issue is feeding, educating and providing other basic services towards the vast majority of the world.


No, the biggest issue is to advance the means of production so that material conditions are equalized and scarcity is eliminated, which in turn get's rid of class-society and opens the way for the withering away of the transitional state.

What you mentioned is all included in that, but as Marxists it's not our main goal to just "provide basic services" to the world, that is ridiculous. Our main goal is to advance the means of production, something which every class has to do to legitimize it's control over society.

Capitalism, for example, did not "provide basic service to the vast majority of the world", yet it was still a required stage in the historic process since it advanced the means of production.


Really, study it. A good dutch book on basic-economics would be 'de verwording van de economie' and specifically Marxist would be 'leerboek politieke economie'.
I'm too lazy to even explain how it would cause more nay's then jay's.


Thanks, but I don't read Dutch books, for one, and two I don't believe I need to know more about political economy than I already know. Not saying that there is more to learn on the matter for me, but I'm not as interested in the subject to go deeper into the theory.

However, I suggest you study the matter more so that you don't stumble on basic Marxist economics. The German Ideology, Capital Volume I, and The State and Revolution are recommended.


How odd, a third world country that did never overcome scarcity in the 80 years it had! The pigs... they must be fake socialists!


No, the fact that the country was controlled by a corrupt bureaucracy instead of democratically by the working-class made them "fake socialists".

But anyway, I'm not going to debate that matter here with you, if you are interested in debating that start a new thread on it, though I'll probably ignore it because I've given up debating Stalinists on this issue.


Besides that the USSR had all resources needed to sustain itself without any help from the outside world. Making this 'theory' un-applicable to given circumstances.

Resources are something entirely different than commodities in general.


Because the U.S. has almost no resources and merely parasites on the rest of the world...
It's completely different situations.

I never said the US was materially ready for socialism either. Socialism implies material conditions higher than even the most advanced capitalist state. Once again, this is basic Marxism.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It doesn't matter, a single nation would not be able to fulfill every need of its citizens.

Calculating how many of what commodity people need without being able to provide it can be reduced to mere mental masturbation on the issue.

And no, the USSR wasn't a "third world country", it was considered to be part of the "second world", though the whole "theory" of separating countries into first, second and third is stupid and pointless to begin with.

At foundation it was certainly third world. Either way, yes universal Socialism is a necessity. But that does not mean that Socialism in one country if a flawed idea, permanent revolution is forcing Socialism upon other countries. Which is fail to begin with.


No it didn't. Computer technology primarily arose in Germany, the UK and US, and the latter two had the most advanced technology in that field up to today.

Wow, you seriol? They didn't?


Anyway it doesn't matter since you just contradicted yourself, you just said the USSR was a third world country unable to calculate it for that reason, and then you go on to say it has the most advanced computers, suggesting it was able to do this...

It doesn't really matter though; both positions are wrong.

Dude seriously, if that didn't read like sarcasm you have issue's.

You are looking at the issue within the context of capitalism, and yes, you are right, within that context it would create huge economic problems.

Value isn't something 'eliminated' by Socialist society.

The whole premise of a communist system is based on a abundance of production.

Abundance of production is different then abundance in products.


I suggest you read some basic works on Marxism.

No need too, i know my economics.

No, the biggest issue is to advance the means of production so that material conditions are equalized and scarcity is eliminated, which in turn get's rid of class-society and opens the way for the withering away of the transitional state.

I never said something it was 'the biggest issue'. I said it was the first priority, or are you denying that education, healthcare, and decent social services are important for the following reasons(?):
A. the well-being of it's country's citizens.
B. the well-being of the economy

If you don't recognize that these issue's are economically important. It's pointless to continue discussing, cause we're on totally different planets. Besides the whole point of Socialism is to reach a better standard of living, this is a part of that. Unless your like those free-market economics who believe that if one's economy develops everyone's wealth develops (partially true, but not to a significant degree). That. and the fact that Capitalism already created the economic conditions needed to sustain a Socialist and even Communist society (I'm not stating we should stop developing the economy btw, before you mis-interpret this too). Again I'll state it is the biggest priority, not the biggest issue.


Thanks, but I don't read Dutch books, for one, and two I don't believe I need to know more about political economy than I already know. Not saying that there is more to learn on the matter for me, but I'm not as interested in the subject to go deeper into the theory.

Edit: mis-read >_<
Fail on my behalf :P.


However, I suggest you study the matter more so that you don&#39;t stumble on basic Marxist economics. The German Ideology, Capital Volume I, and The State and Revolution are recommended.

I have read the third, and most parts of the second. And i will certainly read the rest :). When i have the time that is, cause there&#39;s a huge list of books coming up...

i missed something >_<. My bad...


No, the biggest issue is to advance the means of production so that material conditions are equalized and scarcity is eliminated, which in turn get&#39;s rid of class-society and opens the way for the withering away of the transitional state.

You don&#39;t &#39;just&#39; get rid of class-society by equalizing material conditions and eliminating scarcity. You need class-struggle, cultural advancements towards communism, a whole set of developments on all area&#39;s.


Capitalism, for example, did not "provide basic service to the vast majority of the world", yet it was still a required stage in the historic process since it advanced the means of production.

Yes, and?
Is that an excuse not to provide these services under Socialism?


No, the fact that the country was controlled by a corrupt bureaucracy instead of democratically by the working-class made them "fake socialists".

I guess this is a whole different debate which is open in another thread... so I&#39;m thinking of not responding... Yeah, i wont...


Resources are something entirely different than commodities in general.

Obviously, but resources are needed to develop commodities.


I never said the US was materially ready for socialism either. Socialism implies material conditions higher than even the most advanced capitalist state. Once again, this is basic Marxism.

I never said you said either, did i?

Socialism does not need conditions higher then most advanced capitalist states. The whole fact that the U.S. would not be capable of standing on it&#39;s own feed is because it&#39;s currently parasiting on the rest of the world and never developed an independent economy. In a certain way this is a positive development because the international development of the economy creates what under Socialism will be very useful (I&#39;m not sure how i should have stated that in English). Really, Capitalism in the mode that it is right now does not need much further advancements. I&#39;m not saying we should stop developing, I&#39;m just saying it does not need any further advancements. Which is the historical role of Capitalism. Creating the material and technological basis for Socialism. Currently Capitalism is already capable of feeding the world 3 times (correct me if I&#39;m wrong, could be more. Just too lazy to read through the books).

And no, your &#39;theory&#39; is only applicable to Capitalism 100 years ago. Marxism develops, it&#39;s not something that is stuck and never develops. Different relations need an update on theory. It IS possible to create an economic system with the current technological developments to produce:
A. In harmony with nature,
B. provide anyone with primary, secondary and most tertiary needs.
C. without great income-disparity

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:06 pm
The problem with Communism is that as a result of state control of heavy industry, workers lose the incentive to boost up production rates because they know, they won&#39;t get a bonus. They won&#39;t get paid more for doing more work. Therefore the economy collapses. These are these are tools of the capitalist.

USSR made up 1/8th of the total land mass.............so therefore they had plenty of natural resources such as oil and metals. They had no real excuse to be short of commodities.
You don&#39;t get paid more for producing more in the capitalist world either. Your wages are generally tied to the labor market, not job performance. People got all kinds of bonuses in the Soviet Union; but unfortunately these often went to managers. In the early days, piece rates were often used, so technically people did get more based on production in a collective sense.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 19, 2007 10:21 am
At foundation it was certainly third world. Either way, yes universal Socialism is a necessity. But that does not mean that Socialism in one country if a flawed idea, permanent revolution is forcing Socialism upon other countries. Which is fail to begin with.
No it isn&#39;t. Besides, that&#39;s a bit rich coming from the person who supports the "forcing of socialism" onto Eastern-Europe. But anyway that&#39;s a discussion going into the whole "Stalinism versus Marxism" issue, and I&#39;m not interested in that debate so please keep it on topic.


Wow, you seriol? They didn&#39;t?

Yes I&#39;m serious, the US, UK and Germany were the leading nations when it came to computer technology.

The fact that you keep repeating this as if it&#39;s a well-established historical fact that the USSR was somehow the most advanced nation when it came to computer technology is a bit ridiculous.


Value isn&#39;t something &#39;eliminated&#39; by Socialist society.

So what? The capitalist market system is, and that&#39;s the point.


Abundance of production is different then abundance in products.

Abundance of production creates abundance of products.

When you have all the available means of production to produce however much you want of a certain product; it is an abundance of products and production.

It&#39;s not really difficult to get this and I don&#39;t want to get into an argument over semantics here.


No need too, i know my economics.

Bourgeois economics maybe, but not Marxist.


I never said something it was &#39;the biggest issue&#39;. I said it was the first priority, or are you denying that education, healthcare, and decent social services are important for the following reasons(?):
A. the well-being of it&#39;s country&#39;s citizens.
B. the well-being of the economy

If you don&#39;t recognize that these issue&#39;s are economically important. It&#39;s pointless to continue discussing, cause we&#39;re on totally different planets. Besides the whole point of Socialism is to reach a better standard of living, this is a part of that. Unless your like those free-market economics who believe that if one&#39;s economy develops everyone&#39;s wealth develops (partially true, but not to a significant degree). That. and the fact that Capitalism already created the economic conditions needed to sustain a Socialist and even Communist society (I&#39;m not stating we should stop developing the economy btw, before you mis-interpret this too). Again I&#39;ll state it is the biggest priority, not the biggest issue.

Wow you completely misunderstood my point.

Education, healthcare, "decent social services" as you call them, are all part of developing the general economic system, i.e., if you have more means of production, you can perform the tasks of the previous mentioned services better.

What the hell is this about "free-market economics"? I&#39;m not the one who believes that the capitalist market-system will continue to exist under a socialist society, apparently you are.


You don&#39;t &#39;just&#39; get rid of class-society by equalizing material conditions and eliminating scarcity. You need class-struggle, cultural advancements towards communism, a whole set of developments on all area&#39;s.


Right. Marxists believe that all those other "areas" are products of the economic structure of society, i.e., change the economic structure and all of those will be changed with it.

Of course the point is that changing that economic structure requires changes in those other fields first, like in politics and culture, so you got the issue mixed up there.


Yes, and?
Is that an excuse not to provide these services under Socialism?


No it means that just because a historical stage cannot provide that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not more progressive than the previous.


Obviously, but resources are needed to develop commodities.

And means of production are needed to produce commodities, so if you have the resources without the adequate means of production it doesn&#39;t mean anything.


Socialism does not need conditions higher then most advanced capitalist states. The whole fact that the U.S. would not be capable of standing on it&#39;s own feed is because it&#39;s currently parasiting on the rest of the world and never developed an independent economy.

No it&#39;s because no single nation can ever have as much means of production or resources to eliminate scarcity within its boundaries.


Really, Capitalism in the mode that it is right now does not need much further advancements. I&#39;m not saying we should stop developing, I&#39;m just saying it does not need any further advancements. Which is the historical role of Capitalism. Creating the material and technological basis for Socialism. Currently Capitalism is already capable of feeding the world 3 times (correct me if I&#39;m wrong, could be more. Just too lazy to read through the books).

I&#39;m sorry but your ideas of socialism and communism are so distorted and warped that I can&#39;t even believe you seriously believe that.

Socialism is not about "feeding the world" or "equalizing poverty", socialism is about advancing the means of production beyond what capitalism can, that is why historical stages change in the first place, because the previous one becomes a "fetter on the advancement of the means of production". It&#39;s even in the Communist Manifesto, so you can see why I&#39;m so surprised that you do not know this.


And no, your &#39;theory&#39; is only applicable to Capitalism 100 years ago. Marxism develops, it&#39;s not something that is stuck and never develops. Different relations need an update on theory. It IS possible to create an economic system with the current technological developments to produce:
A. In harmony with nature,
B. provide anyone with primary, secondary and most tertiary needs.
C. without great income-disparity

Yeah it must be great living in a world where everyone has the same size small house, the same food everyday to eat, have to wait in line for a car or any other "luxury" product, I can&#39;t wait for socialism to come&#33;

That is ridiculous. The current means of production aren&#39;t even close to fulfilling the needs of the worlds people. Just because it "works" for a small minority of the worlds population doesn&#39;t mean that it can just "work" like magic for everyone else. You do realize that the vast majority of the 6 billion people do not enjoy the "lifestyle" of the first world right? You do realize that if they were to enjoy such a lifestyle, the means of production would have to be developed countless times more then they already have, right? And you do realize that capitalism doesn&#39;t want to advance the means of production anymore, and is actually holding back the advancement of it because it wants to keep its profits up, right?

Well maybe you didn&#39;t realize all those things, oh well. Your brand of ideology is not Marxism, it&#39;s not even Maoism, it&#39;s not even any form of Stalinism in general, because they&#39;d all agree with me....I think you&#39;re ideology is pretty close to Pol Potism, with the whole "we already have the material basis for communism&#33;&#33;" nonsense.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Yes I&#39;m serious, the US, UK and Germany were the leading nations when it came to computer technology.

The fact that you keep repeating this as if it&#39;s a well-established historical fact that the USSR was somehow the most advanced nation when it came to computer technology is a bit ridiculous.

Dude, that was sarcasm... really.. wtf, you didn&#39;t even get the &#39;seriol&#39;-part?

So what? The capitalist market system is, and that&#39;s the point.


Value is what creates the problems of abundance in goods. See, an over-production of goods would mean that you would need artificially high prices for products while you would have to buy them from the farmers for artificially high prices in collectives and state-farms too. Which causes economic stagnation... (I&#39;m not just talking farms, just being specific about food in this case)


Abundance of production creates abundance of products.

When you have all the available means of production to produce however much you want of a certain product; it is an abundance of products and production.

It&#39;s not really difficult to get this and I don&#39;t want to get into an argument over semantics here.

Abundance of production does not automatically create an abundance of products, either way your right. It&#39;s pointless to debate semantics.


Bourgeois economics maybe, but not Marxist.

Both bourgeoisie and Marxist.

Wow you completely misunderstood my point.

Education, healthcare, "decent social services" as you call them, are all part of developing the general economic system, i.e., if you have more means of production, you can perform the tasks of the previous mentioned services better.


That is true, but establishing education, healthcare and decent social services are currently possible within almost every single nation. Therefore you can do that, while the general health, level of education and level of security create greater economic successes.
This is of course purely from an economic point of view, when you look at it from a sociological point of view it is a very good way to gain support and it&#39;s just morally correct.

What the hell is this about "free-market economics"? I&#39;m not the one who believes that the capitalist market-system will continue to exist under a socialist society, apparently you are.


Your saying the law of value will stop existing under Socialism. Thats bull-shit.

Right. Marxists believe that all those other "areas" are products of the economic structure of society, i.e., change the economic structure and all of those will be changed with it.

Yes, they are interconnected. But in the specific case of culture and a whole other set of area&#39;s it is not the economic structure itself that has influence on it. But the entity that influences the economic structure. I don&#39;t really give a flying crap whether you think that is &#39;really Marxist&#39; or not. It is true (and truth is what we need to search for as Marxists), an example would be our educational system where we currently &#39;grade&#39; our students. It is more of a competition then an educational enhancement wherein everybody develops collectively. This creates individualism which in turn influences the economy. The way people think influences the way an economy is set up, whether you think that is Marxist or not.


Of course the point is that changing that economic structure requires changes in those other fields first, like in politics and culture, so you got the issue mixed up there.

I never said anything about politics, thats a given. The political structure has to change before you can alter the economic one.


No it means that just because a historical stage cannot provide that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not more progressive than the previous.

Your making no sense to me, please elaborate.

Edit: after re-reading this phrase a couple of times i get your point. Thats true, but the lack of such means in it&#39;s previous stages is not an excuse not to provide these services either.
I think we&#39;re mis-communicating on this part...


And means of production are needed to produce commodities, so if you have the resources without the adequate means of production it doesn&#39;t mean anything.

True, that is why the USSR made such great progress in these fields. Not because they thought it might &#39;look awesome&#39;.


No it&#39;s because no single nation can ever have as much means of production or resources to eliminate scarcity within its boundaries.

Your saying that, but your not backing it up. I&#39;m saying the USSR had all resources needed to sustain itself, therefore all it needed to do was develop the means of production (which it did, just not to a significant enough degree). This does not proof though that it is impossible.

I&#39;m sorry but your ideas of socialism and communism are so distorted and warped that I can&#39;t even believe you seriously believe that.

You better start believing it.


Socialism is not about "feeding the world" or "equalizing poverty", socialism is about advancing the means of production beyond what capitalism can, that is why historical stages change in the first place, because the previous one becomes a "fetter on the advancement of the means of production". It&#39;s even in the Communist Manifesto, so you can see why I&#39;m so surprised that you do not know this.

Well, feeding the world would already be a great advancement to be quite frankly.
Socialism is about changing the modes of relations to such an extend that it creates the capacity to form a Communist society wherein the capitalist system created the necessary material developments to do so.
And boohoo, a book that was written 150 years ago whereof Marx and Engels said it was outdated only 130 years ago said you we&#39;re right&#33; Congratulations&#33; I am so convinced that you are right, right now&#33; (note: that is sarcasm, I&#39;ll add that for you don&#39;t seem to recognize sarcasm)


Yeah it must be great living in a world where everyone has the same size small house, the same food everyday to eat, have to wait in line for a car or any other "luxury" product, I can&#39;t wait for socialism to come&#33;

Where did i say that, besides that Socialism isn&#39;t just about &#39;better standards of living&#39;. It is about creating a better society, and yes to do so you would need great material developments. But these are already supplied to us by capitalism&#33;


That is ridiculous. The current means of production aren&#39;t even close to fulfilling the needs of the worlds people.

No, the current relations in the world are not capable of doing so. The means of production are.

Just because it "works" for a small minority of the worlds population doesn&#39;t mean that it can just "work" like magic for everyone else.

Thats not really what i am saying, i am saying that it is easily possible to provide the entire world with all primary, secondary and most tertiary needs. Or don&#39;t you understand these concepts?
The current means of production and technology have shown this capacity, it is only set back by capitalism but that does not mean that it is therefore impossible. The material and technological basis exists.

You do realize that the vast majority of the 6 billion people do not enjoy the "lifestyle" of the first world right?

No i didn&#39;t, it&#39;s a good thing you remind me of that >_>. (again, sarcasm)

You do realize that if they were to enjoy such a lifestyle, the means of production would have to be developed countless times more then they already have, right?

Developed, not really. Multiplied, yes. Updated to fit the ecological needs of mother nature, yes. But the material and technological basis is already present.

And you do realize that capitalism doesn&#39;t want to advance the means of production anymore, and is actually holding back the advancement of it because it wants to keep its profits up, right?

Wow, you seriol? (sarcasm)

Really, thats true on a certain level. For there is still development in certain area&#39;s to save profits. Either way the material and technological basis is already present, we have everything we need. We can produce ecologically friendly, we can mass-produce any product we want if there are plenty of resources. But thanks to capitalisms advances on these fields, nike for example now developed shoes that can be fully recycled.
All we need now is a greater quantity of factory&#39;s, a higher ecological standard. And theoretically the conditions are present for a Communist society. Of course the means of production and technology need to develop to a higher level, but theoretically it&#39;s present.


Well maybe you didn&#39;t realize all those things, oh well. Your brand of ideology is not Marxism, it&#39;s not even Maoism, it&#39;s not even any form of Stalinism in general, because they&#39;d all agree with me....

If thats true, then fine. I disagree with them until I&#39;ve been proven wrong. Which you haven&#39;t this far, so yeah. Besides Marxism isn&#39;t something thats stuck, again I&#39;ll state it&#39;s in a never-ending state of development. Which needs to be updated to different situations. The current situation requires a different analyses then society 150 years ago Marx and Engels we&#39;re discussing in the Communist Manifesto.

I think you&#39;re ideology is pretty close to Pol Potism, with the whole "we already have the material basis for communism&#33;&#33;" nonsense.

Actually, Cambodia wasn&#39;t even close to the right conditions. I am talking about the world in it&#39;s present state. You are talking about Cambodia 30 years ago. Which basically was a war-torn ruined country which was one of the poorest of the world. I don&#39;t think thats really comparable to the world in it&#39;s present condition.

[Lenin II]

No of course not&#33; The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to &#39;glorious socialism&#33;&#39;

Well mainly sources argue that 7 million died. But I have not analyzed the exact numbers or the methods of how they obtained such numbers.

Next time don’t get your stats from packs of cappie lies like “The Black Book of Communism” or anything similar. Actual deaths were less than half that number. No. 2 has already given the details of this bourgeoisie lie.


Caused by Kulaks? I don&#39;t think it is as simple as that. The causes were diverse as I outlined above.

Ah, but the cause was only Stalin, correct? Yes, that makes much more sense&#33; Why do you blame the Soviet government? Their calamities are not wholly the result of Stalin&#39;s decisions. They are the result of drought, past history, the backwardness of technology and agriculture, the lack of organization, the low level of administrative knowledge, the lack of materials, war, economic blockade by the French, the British, the Americans and other imperialist powers, the vengeance acts of bourgeoisie and landowners, sabotage by capitalists and their servants, and by the constant actions of bandits and spies.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:36 am

That famine was caused by the kulaks, google it if you don&#39;t know what those are.

this is not plausible. the kulaks had been reduced by 1922 to only 0.7% of the peasant population. but they were used as a scapegoat by the Communist leadership.
Actually i re-read my sources and it was 3 - 5 % in the area&#39;s producing grain and 2 - 3 % in area&#39;s that did not. Lets look at some statistics of the killings:
out of 34 million horses only 15 million we&#39;re &#39;spared&#39; by the kulaks (or weren&#39;t in their hands).
out of 70,5 million moo&#39;s only 40,7 million we&#39;re left after the event.
out of 31 million cows only 18 million made it.
out of 26 million pigs, 11 million made it.
And thats not even talking about the economics losses and material losses of burned homes, stocks, grain-silo&#39;s, grain-fields, etc... etc...

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+November 16, 2007 08:50 pm--> (ComradeOm @ November 16, 2007 08:50 pm)
Red [email protected] 10, 2007 11:07 am
They didn&#39;t &#39;&#39;always&#39;&#39; had shortages. They also had overproduction. The shortages in general were the result of the centrally planned economy. The state didn&#39;t knew what exactly was the demand of each comodity, they just guessed that the demand of toilet paper was say 20.000.000 toiler papers/month and they produced it.
An additional factor, one that I don&#39;t believe has been mentioned, was the artificially low prices of most/all consumer goods. The absence of market mechanisms ensured that, along with everything else, inflation had to be manually adjusted. For a variety of reasons this was a problematic issue and the end result was that the retail price of most consumables remained far too low. Attempts to correct this with periodic increases often ran into difficulties - note the 1970 riots in Poland (that led to the fall of Gomułka) that accompanied a large readjustment of food prices.

With prices being kept so low it was not surprising that demand soared and shortages resulted. Imagine if Armani suddenly began selling suits for €10 and you have a similar scenario. This, coupled with the difficulty in forecasting demand, was the major cause of the shortages in the planned economy [/b]
Very well said.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 14, 2007 12:46 pm
The problem here is that nobody is noticing that the Soviet Union underwent a trend of decentralization beginning in the Khruschev era, and it was this decentralization without coordination that led to shortages on a massive scale. Central planning and decentralization are not necessarily inherently bad; this issue is communication. Modern day technology makes it easier to have a relatively decentralized planned economy, without the problems of regionalism and personal fiefdoms.

For a description of using modern technology to coordinate central planning, I recommend Cotrell and Cockshot&#39;s Toward the New Socialism, which can be found for free on my blog(look in the links). Incidentily the Allende government in Chile had developed a similar system in the 70s, but the Pinochet regime burried it(literally).
Please. The shortages didn&#39;t came to the surface because the State was incapable to allocate the services and commodities. Otherwise in Capitalism, where the state doesn&#39;t do that, we would always face shortages.

The problem is that in a centrally planned economy where there isn&#39;t abudance it is impossible for an entire bureaucracy to measure the demand of something.

In the market there is no need to measure anything. The prices (the demand) are fixed by the market, and not the State.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 16, 2007 10:05 pm
The USSR was a third world country. In current day society, such statistics could easily be determined. Since you we&#39;re talking about a future situation.
No it can not be easily determined at all. In order to do that you need billions of computers which must operate 24/7, and you have near infinite variables. Aside from that, one small variations in a variable (e.g. 1.2 instead of 1) will give you a different results.

And that is if the bureaucrat who is collecting the information is correct. For example he must send a note from Siberia to to Moscow the precise size of a farm and the Kg of rice that were produced in it.

In short, we are talking about a huge headache.

The only thing certain is that the Soviet bureaucrats never had a chance to have their centrally planned system working.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+November 24, 2007 12:47 pm--> (Red Brigade @ November 24, 2007 12:47 pm)
No. [email protected] 16, 2007 10:05 pm
The USSR was a third world country. In current day society, such statistics could easily be determined. Since you we&#39;re talking about a future situation.
No it can not be easily determined at all. In order to do that you need billions of computers which must operate 24/7, and you have near infinite variables. Aside from that, one small variations in a variable (e.g. 1.2 instead of 1) will give you a different results.

And that is if the bureaucrat who is collecting the information is correct. For example he must send a note from Siberia to to Moscow the precise size of a farm and the Kg of rice that were produced in it.

In short, we are talking about a huge headache.

The only thing certain is that the Soviet bureaucrats never had a chance to have their centrally planned system working. [/b]
That is bull shit, look at how Wall-Mart works, when you buy a product the computer automatically logs the sale and updates the inventory. Wal-Marts logistic network (that deals with distribution) gets a report from all the stores, when needed makes shipments order to move goods from the warehouses to stores with no human intervention. The computer tracks inventory and make production orders then e-mails them to managers to confirm the order (since money will have to be spent to fill the order). Wal-Mart managers can look at pretty graphics representing all this making it not that hard to look at trends.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by No. 2
I&#39;m saying the USSR had all resources needed to sustain itself, therefore all it needed to do was develop the means of production (which it did, just not to a significant enough degree)

If I may interject myself into this discussion, I must say that your assertion that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics (U.S.S.R) was not industrialized enough seems really odd to me.

Now, although they did not focus enough on the production of both consumer and light industrial products, that does not negate the fact that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics (U.S.S.R) did become the world&#39;s second largest economy and had developed a solid industrial base that put it at parity with the United States in many areas. By negating these facts, you are also negating accomplishments of the "Soviets".

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+November 25, 2007 12:14 am--> (Communist FireFox @ November 25, 2007 12:14 am)
No. 2
I&#39;m saying the USSR had all resources needed to sustain itself, therefore all it needed to do was develop the means of production (which it did, just not to a significant enough degree)

If I may interject myself into this discussion, I must say that your assertion that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics (U.S.S.R) was not industrialized enough seems really odd to me.

Now, although they did not focus enough on the production of both consumer and light industrial products, that does not negate the fact that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics (U.S.S.R) did become the world&#39;s second largest economy and had developed a solid industrial base that put it at parity with the United States in many areas. By negating these facts, you are also negating accomplishments of the "Soviets". [/b]
Just a quick question, why do you put quotes around the words soviet and socialist.

No matter your opinion of the USSR, they were socialist under Lenin and Stalin.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:30 pm
So why did the USSR always have shortages of commodities? From the NEP years when you had the scissors crisis right up to the end. It seems the USSR had enough industrial capacity. How much did the military suck out of the productive forces, how much was due to mismanagement and waste?

How hard it had been for workers to straighten out the situation in the USSR if they took power in the late 80&#39;s/early 90&#39;s
i might be a bit late. and I don&#39;t know if anyone has already posted this links. But I was reading about this my self. and I found this really cool article from Wikipedia.. check it out...

consumer goods in the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union)

and check this one out too. it&#39;s a great read..

History of post soviet Russia.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_post-Soviet_Russia)

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM
Just a quick question, why do you put quotes around the words soviet and socialist.

The reason why I used quotes around the words "Socialist" and "Soviet" is because the U.S.S.R was not Socialist at all, for the Bolshevik party practically crushed any kind of working class power that did exist in Russia by 1921 and because the word "Soviet" is Russian for council and originally implied a structure that was dominated by both the workers and peasants of Russia.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:01 pm

The shortages weren&#39;t always as bad as people think.

No of course not&#33;

The 1932-33 Ukrainian famine where an estimated 7,000,000 perished was just a hiccup in the road to &#39;glorious socialism&#33;&#39;

:lol:
Fuck that Nazi bullshit&#33; Sure there was a famine, famines happen in capitalist countries too, but don&#39;t use a fascist source unless you&#39;re a fascist (maybe you are I don&#39;t know). The famine happened because of drought and poor weather but because of class war because the kulaks burn crops or hoarded them in order to resist collectivization. By repeating nazi bullshit you&#39;re trying to prove that collectivization is a failure. The reality is that socialized agriculture in the end quadruptled agricultural production throughout the soviet union. With the return of capitalist agriculture, millions have become homeless, life expectancy has crashed 10 years from what it was during socialism (a jump which originally doubled life expectancy). But of course you prefer to ignore that and simply parade around right wing propanda. I think its important that you look at how many people are starving around the world with privatized agriculture 10,000 every single day before you spew your capitalist nonesense

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+November 25, 2007 12:57 am--> (Communist FireFox @ November 25, 2007 12:57 am)
COMRADE CRUM
Just a quick question, why do you put quotes around the words soviet and socialist.

The reason why I used quotes around the words "Socialist" and "Soviet" is because the U.S.S.R was not Socialist at all, for the Bolshevik party practically crushed any kind of working class power that did exist in Russia by 1921 and because the word "Soviet" is Russian for council and originally implied a structure that was dominated by both the workers and peasants of Russia. [/b]
I disagree, the USSR was socialist. It was definitely socialist 1922-1953.

I&#39;m kind of a stickler for history, just so you know-the USSR hadn&#39;t formed until 1922. Criticisms about things before than should be leveled at Russia.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 25, 2007 06:02 am--> (COMRADE CRUM &#064; November 25, 2007 06:02 am)
Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 25, 2007 12:57 am

COMRADE CRUM
Just a quick question, why do you put quotes around the words soviet and socialist.

The reason why I used quotes around the words "Socialist" and "Soviet" is because the U.S.S.R was not Socialist at all, for the Bolshevik party practically crushed any kind of working class power that did exist in Russia by 1921 and because the word "Soviet" is Russian for council and originally implied a structure that was dominated by both the workers and peasants of Russia.
I disagree, the USSR was socialist. It was definitely socialist 1922-1953.

I&#39;m kind of a stickler for history, just so you know-the USSR hadn&#39;t formed until 1922. Criticisms about things before than should be leveled at Russia. [/b]
Socialism has never existed in history, as a main criterion of it is to have productive forces more advanced than even those of the most advanced capitalist nations out there. The USSR started off in the transitional period to socialism (socialism essentially being a lower phase of communism), i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Socialism also requires the efforts of at least several advanced nations, and there has not as of yet been a successful socialist revolution in an advanced country.

""The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

-Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme
Part IV: On Democracy

""The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat."

-Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 2.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Psy+November 24, 2007 05:17 pm--> (Psy @ November 24, 2007 05:17 pm)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 12:47 pm

No. [email protected] 16, 2007 10:05 pm
The USSR was a third world country. In current day society, such statistics could easily be determined. Since you we&#39;re talking about a future situation.
No it can not be easily determined at all. In order to do that you need billions of computers which must operate 24/7, and you have near infinite variables. Aside from that, one small variations in a variable (e.g. 1.2 instead of 1) will give you a different results.

And that is if the bureaucrat who is collecting the information is correct. For example he must send a note from Siberia to to Moscow the precise size of a farm and the Kg of rice that were produced in it.

In short, we are talking about a huge headache.

The only thing certain is that the Soviet bureaucrats never had a chance to have their centrally planned system working.
That is bull shit, look at how Wall-Mart works, when you buy a product the computer automatically logs the sale and updates the inventory. Wal-Marts logistic network (that deals with distribution) gets a report from all the stores, when needed makes shipments order to move goods from the warehouses to stores with no human intervention. The computer tracks inventory and make production orders then e-mails them to managers to confirm the order (since money will have to be spent to fill the order). Wal-Mart managers can look at pretty graphics representing all this making it not that hard to look at trends. [/b]
No. Because we are not talking about reports on how the sales are going in a specific shop. We are discussing how all the commodities and services should be distributed in a society where the entire economy has been centralized.

Ordering a hot dog from a hot-dog stand becomes the issue of the state.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25, 2007 11:05 am
No. Because we are not talking about reports on how the sales are going in a specific shop. We are discussing how all the commodities and services should be distributed in a society where the entire economy has been centralized.

Ordering a hot dog from a hot-dog stand becomes the issue of the state.
Wal-Mart is large retail chain and my point is already computer networks can track demand and match demand with stock. So when it comes to planning the data is there on the demand side, the data is also there on the production side (networks in factories keep track of stock it needs, and output).

[Panda Tse Tung]

Now, although they did not focus enough on the production of both consumer and light industrial products, that does not negate the fact that the Union of "Socialist" "Soviet" Republics (U.S.S.R) did become the world&#39;s second largest economy

The &#39;world&#39;s second largest economy&#39; is quite a vague statement, it doesn&#39;t say... well... anything.


and had developed a solid industrial base that put it at parity with the United States in many areas.

yes, and?


By negating these facts, you are also negating accomplishments of the "Soviets".

I wasn&#39;t negating anything. Read before interrupting discussions.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 26, 2007 11:12 pm

By negating these facts, you are also negating accomplishments of the "Soviets".

I wasn&#39;t negating anything. Read before interrupting discussions.
Look up the meaning of the word "negating", then reread his post.

Hopefully you&#39;ll get it then.

You are so horrible at debating I&#39;m not even sure why you bother doing it, it must be some form of masochism. Your reply to me was so pathetic in nature that I decided to ignore it, but it seems as though you have taken it to mean that you were "victorious".

Let me explain something to you; when you pull things out of your ass in an argument, and I expose you performing this act, and then you deny ever doing it, there is no point in arguing with you. One example is the computer technology claim you made, being: "the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known", then after I refuted this moronic claim you stated: "Dude, that was sarcasm." Now you may say that it was sarcasm because you added "seriol" to it, but that was only the second time you replied to it after first making the serious statement that I refuted:

Me: Given the amount of statistics and figures that are able to be put together these days by use of computer-technology and other means, it can easily be calculated by about how much the need for a certain commodity will rise.

You: Yes, and the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known.

No "seriol" in that, now was there?

Then there is the issue of semantics, because you don&#39;t know what you or I am talking about. For example when I mentioned your ideology to be akin to Pol Pot&#39;s you took that to mean Pol Pot&#39;s practical implementation of his ideology in Cambodia, when I was obviously referring to the ideology, not the practice. Either that was a cheap debating trick or you truly are that horrible at understanding the definition of the term "ideology". It is irrelevant to me either way; the conclusion is that debating you is useless and therefore to ignore you is best.

Now please, stop flattering yourself and your "comrades" by proudly proclaiming victory when you don&#39;t even know what the argument was about, and stop acting like a child in other threads, you&#39;re just making a fool of yourself to the people who know how to read and comprehend at the same time.

[Panda Tse Tung]

You are so horrible at debating I&#39;m not even sure why you bother doing it, it must be some form of masochism. Your reply to me was so pathetic in nature that I decided to ignore it, but it seems as though you have taken it to mean that you were "victorious".

Yes, it&#39;s a fetish. And boohoo, you didn&#39;t reply because you perceive it to be stupid. That doesn&#39;t make you smart or me dumb, but it does make you arrogant.


Let me explain something to you; when you pull things out of your ass in an argument, and I expose you performing this act, and then you deny ever doing it, there is no point in arguing with you. One example is the computer technology claim you made, being: "the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known", then after I refuted this moronic claim you stated: "Dude, that was sarcasm." Now you may say that it was sarcasm because you added "seriol" to it, but that was only the second time you replied to it after first making the serious statement that I refuted:

Ok, let me explain this to you:
I asked for a non-idealistic alternative to the Soviet-system (taking into account the whole shit concerning the USSR). You go on talking crap about computers and advanced computer-technology. My reply to that was: &#39;Yeah, cause the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known.&#39;
A. the USSR stopped existing 15 years ago, i said &#39;the world has ever known&#39;. If true, then why wouldn&#39;t we fucking use Soviet-technology in our computers right now in stead of Dell? (par example)
So if you don&#39;t get the point of sarcasm on this behalf you are the one lacking any capacity to debate, or at the very least understand irony/sarcasm.


Me: Given the amount of statistics and figures that are able to be put together these days by use of computer-technology and other means, it can easily be calculated by about how much the need for a certain commodity will rise.

You: Yes, and the USSR had the most advanced computers planet earth has ever known.

No "seriol" in that, now was there?

No, but it&#39;s a good thing you quoted yourself, so i don&#39;t have to re-quote you (which i was planning to do).
Besides, would such a comment even need a fucking seriol to understand it&#39;s sarcasm? And when i replied &#39;ohw, you seriol?&#39; you even perceived it to not be sarcasm. Merely showing your lack of understanding concerning human relations on your behalf (or logic for that matter).


Then there is the issue of semantics, because you don&#39;t know what you or I am talking about. For example when I mentioned your ideology to be akin to Pol Pot&#39;s you took that to mean Pol Pot&#39;s practical implementation of his ideology in Cambodia, when I was obviously referring to the ideology, not the practice.

There is no such thing as &#39;Pol Potism&#39;, thus it can merely refer to it&#39;s practice. Or else give me some theoretical writings written by famous &#39;Pol Potists&#39; concerning current day society and it&#39;s technological advancements?

Either that was a cheap debating trick or you truly are that horrible at understanding the definition of the term "ideology". It is irrelevant to me either way; the conclusion is that debating you is useless and therefore to ignore you is best.

Yes, this really looks like your ignoring me. For you are the master of semantics, but the master of semantics doesn&#39;t even know the meaning of the word &#39;ignoring&#39;. Jay&#33;


Now please, stop flattering yourself and your "comrades" by proudly proclaiming victory when you don&#39;t even know what the argument was about, and stop acting like a child in other threads, you&#39;re just making a fool of yourself to the people who know how to read and comprehend at the same time.

I&#39;m not the one being an arrogant bastard. I&#39;m merely responding to your statements, if you don&#39;t agree with them, fine. I don&#39;t care if you don&#39;t give a reasonable response i can just assume you cant win the debate or are to arrogant to continue debating. Either way, you fail, i don&#39;t.
And yes we made a thread about you whining, thats what Chit-Chat is for&#33; Seriously how can you claim I&#39;m a &#39;Pol-Potist&#39; because I&#39;m saying that current-day society and the world at this point has the technological and material basis to build Socialism. While Pol Pot believed that the material basis of Cambodia 30 years ago was sufficient...
It is completely impossible to compare those situations. Maybe you are the master of semantics and I&#39;m not, but your certainly not a master of reasoning.


Look up the meaning of the word "negating", then reread his post.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861632720 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861632720)

I re-read his post, now what?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by No. 2+November 27, 2007 06:22 pm--> (No. 2 &#064; November 27, 2007 06:22 pm) So if you don&#39;t get the point of sarcasm on this behalf/Besides, would such a comment even need a fucking seriol to understand it&#39;s sarcasm? [/b]
Oh I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t have the power to read minds like you do. You should borrow me that Crystal Ball sometime, that way I&#39;ll know what you mean all the time, even if you don&#39;t bother to add an emoticon or anything else to indicate sarcasm, and when you present the statement in a form that is typical of your other statements and actually seem "logical" coming from you given the ridiculous nature of your other statements and claims.

And also borrow me that Dictionary To Indicate Sarcasm For Dummies book to me one time, I didn&#39;t know that "seriol" was used for that reason. I thought that you made a spelling-error given the tendency you have to do that a lot as well.


There is no such thing as &#39;Pol Potism&#39;, thus it can merely refer to it&#39;s practice.

The practice was based on a theoretical framework, it&#39;s not like Pol Pot and his buddies just decided to get together and "have some fun" politically, though I understand that you probably hold that view of politics.

Their theoretical framework was based on the idea that advanced material conditions weren&#39;t required for a socialist/communist society, and that they could build socialism by reverting to the peasants-based economy. In other words they didn&#39;t believe that the material conditions and means of production had to be advanced, in fact they worked to prevent it. You also don&#39;t believe the material conditions have to be advanced, and given the current level of material conditions in the world that would mean disaster for the vast majority of the world population, or the continuation of the current disaster.

Why don&#39;t you crack open a book once in a while? I&#39;m tired of having to school you in a discussion.


at this point has the technological and material basis to build Socialism.
Emphasis added

Originally posted by [email protected]
Socialism does not need conditions higher then most advanced capitalist states.

you
I&#39;m not saying we should stop developing, I&#39;m just saying it does not need any further advancements.

To build socialism? Well fuck, of course the technological and material basis is there to build socialism, to build it means to advance it at the same time, i.e., to advance the material and technological level of the world. My point was that after socialism is built, it has a more higher material and technological level than the most advanced capitalist state now, not before.

It requires a socialist economic system to achieve that because the current capitalist economic system has become a fetter on production.

Ugh this is what I meant when I mentioned the semantics issue, you word things in a way that the meaning of it is altered to mean something else then what you really believe.

Well congratulations, we just had a discussion based on misinterpreted posts. I suggest that in the future you word things better to represent what you actually believe.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Oh I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t have the power to read minds like you do. You should borrow me that Crystal Ball sometime, that way I&#39;ll know what you mean all the time, even if you don&#39;t bother to add an emoticon or anything else to indicate sarcasm, and when you present the statement in a form that is typical of your other statements and actually seem "logical" coming from you given the ridiculous nature of your other statements and claims.

And also borrow me that Dictionary To Indicate Sarcasm For Dummies book to me one time, I didn&#39;t know that "seriol" was used for that reason. I thought that you made a spelling-error given the tendency you have to do that a lot as well.

Maybe because emoticons don&#39;t work on my proxy. Either way it was quite obvious, you don&#39;t need a fucking dictionary for that, you need a life to understand that.
And thats basically all you need to get the point of sarcasm on that behalf.


The practice was based on a theoretical framework, it&#39;s not like Pol Pot and his buddies just decided to get together and "have some fun" politically, though I understand that you probably hold that view of politics.

The theoretical framework was the incorrect implementation of what they perceived to be Marxism-Leninism. If you think that this incorrect interpretation should be labeled &#39;Pol Potism&#39; then fine. But besides Cambodia&#39;s specific situation at the time nothing else could be labeled &#39;Pol Potism&#39; for it had a really specific situation that cant be compared in any way, shape or form to other situations. And thus cant be implemented in other situations.
The fact that they believed they had the material conditions to achieve Communism at the time is an incorrect analyses (on their behalf) but it does not make someone who believes that current day society (as in the world) already theoretically speaking has the material basis for Communism.
And again: I&#39;m not saying it shouldn&#39;t be advanced, i am just saying that theoretically speaking we could build a Communist society on the technological and Material basis we have right now. You haven&#39;t even given any proof it&#39;s not existent. At least i tried to explain my point of view, your only argument is &#39;it was in the Communist Manifesto and i have read some other 100 year old books on political economy&#39;&#33;



Their theoretical framework was based on the idea that advanced material conditions weren&#39;t required for a socialist/communist society, and that they could build socialism by reverting to the peasants-based economy.

And current day society is peasants-based?


In other words they didn&#39;t believe that the material conditions and means of production had to be advanced, in fact they worked to prevent it.

I&#39;m saying it&#39;s theoretically not a necessity if at this point all of a sudden the entire world would turn Socialist that is. Otherwise it would be required to at the very least keep up with the capitalist world.


You also don&#39;t believe the material conditions have to be advanced, and given the current level of material conditions in the world that would mean disaster for the vast majority of the world population, or the continuation of the current disaster.

Thats bull-shit as i have said before, we can easily feed the world, nurse the world, educate the world (all primary and secondary needs) and besides that provide them with most of the tertiary needs. I suggest you read &#39;de kloof en de uitweg&#39; which provides you with the economic data required to do such things. It&#39;s actually not expensive at all, and materially possible. All we need is a development of quantity (and with it thus quality) of the means of production, schools, hospitals, etc... But materially and technologically speaking the basis is present.



Why don&#39;t you crack open a book once in a while? I&#39;m tired of having to school you in a discussion.

Your not really schooling me, for some reason you seem to think you have the truth on your side. While you haven&#39;t provided any additional information and sources to this &#39;truth&#39;.
This is what we call a debate, placing different opinions opposed to one another and seeking the truth in it. For some reason you seem to think that this &#39;truth&#39; is absolute because you read some books written 100 to 150 years ago.



To build socialism? Well fuck, of course the technological and material basis is there to build socialism, to build it means to advance it at the same time, i.e., to advance the material and technological level of the world. My point was that after socialism is built, it has a more higher material and technological level than the most advanced capitalist state now, not before.

The material basis is present yes, theoretically speaking if socialism and communism would be build without truly advancing the current material conditions it would actually be quite good. And definitely not the nightmare you are suggesting it will be.



Ugh this is what I meant when I mentioned the semantics issue, you word things in a way that the meaning of it is altered to mean something else then what you really believe.

Actually you interpreted it correctly, at least i think you did. I don&#39;t really phrase things incorrectly, I&#39;ve just been raised in a way you just state things in a direct way without being politically correct about it. For semantic Nazi&#39;s this might seem horrible, ohw well... thats your issue, not really mine.

[Led Zeppelin]

At least i tried to explain my point of view, your only argument is &#39;it was in the Communist Manifesto and i have read some other 100 year old books on political economy&#39;&#33;

My argument is to not be blind or stupid. If you bothered to get your head out of Mao&#39;s ass you would&#39;ve noticed that the current material and technological level of the world is hardly enough to satisfy the needs of the imperialist nations, let alone the world as a whole. This leads a person who can reason and think logically to conclude that the material and technological level of the world has to be advanced, i.e., built, i.e., one of the main reasons a transition phase called "socialism" exists in the first place.

This is not only written in "100 year old books" (by the way learn some history and math, the manifesto was written long before that), but it is also true today, not just because it was written by Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. but because their argument for writing it was as true back then as it is today, that is, to anyone who is not blind or stupid.

You phrase things like a 12 year old schoolboy, if you consider that to be correct then have fun making a fool of yourself in future discussions when you chime in with your inane bullshit.

Don&#39;t mistake your ideology with Marxism. Continue to call it Maoism so that every sensible person can proceed to ignore you.

Now stop replying to me, as I said I&#39;m tired of schooling you.

[Panda Tse Tung]

My argument is to not be blind or stupid. If you bothered to get your head out of Mao&#39;s ass you would&#39;ve noticed that the current material and technological level of the world is hardly enough to satisfy the needs of the imperialist nations, let alone the world as a whole.

Thats a matter of consciousness. I have everything i need and the most crappy wage one can think off. But besides that really everybody can easily have economically technically speaking have all their primary and secondary fulfilled with little economic effort actually. The only &#39;real&#39; efforts that need to be invested might be the tertiary needs, but hey the factories are easily capable of producing that much. As i said before you merely need to increase the quantity of the means of production. But factually &#39;developing&#39; them is not necessary.



This is not only written in "100 year old books" (by the way learn some history and math, the manifesto was written long before that), but it is also true today, not just because it was written by Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. but because their argument for writing it was as true back then as it is today, that is, to anyone who is not blind or stupid.

Thanks for the great additional information. Still, the fact that you used 100 year old books to prove your point doesn&#39;t make you the best &#39;teacher&#39; (as you seem to think of yourself).



You phrase things like a 12 year old schoolboy, if you consider that to be correct then have fun making a fool of yourself in future discussions when you chime in with your inane bullshit.

No, i phrase things so that people know what the fuck I&#39;m talking about. If you go up to someone and say: &#39;Well, the ridiculous contradiction within this dynamic is unheard off&#39; or you say: &#39;Dude, thats fucking crazy&#39;. Well, your life, i don&#39;t really care how you phrase things, but don&#39;t judge me on &#39;phrasing things differently&#39; or as you say &#39;like a 12-year old&#39;. At least a 12 year old will know what the fuck I&#39;m talking about. Fucking Trotskist &#39;intellectualism&#39;.



Don&#39;t mistake your ideology with Marxism. Continue to call it Maoism so that every sensible person can proceed to ignore you.

It&#39;s actually Marxist-Leninist-Maoism.



Now stop replying to me, as I said I&#39;m tired of schooling you.

Then stop replying to me if your tired of it. With your fucking elitarist &#39;intellectualism&#39;. And even with you perceiving yourself to be so smart you don&#39;t seem to comprehend that if you are tired of a debate or as you like to call it &#39;schooling someone&#39; you should stop debating/&#39;schooling&#39; yourself.

[Psy]

The USSR had the means to provide enough goods to pacify the masses even those in its satellites in Eastern Europe. It seems the USSR did not grow as much as Britain did during the long boom (that while not as extensive did have a welfare state) and got the same stagflation as the west (proving the USSR economy was linked to the world&#39;s capitalist market). I hear some say the USSR military took a large chunk of the USSR industrial capacity, so I wonder how much did the USSR military drag the USSR economy down? Also since the USSR was able to coordinate production to meet the needs of its massive military what happened with the rest of production?