Concerning the constant attack on M-Ls

I have asked a few well-thought people on this forum about their answers to what I have asked them. I am just interested in what all Marxist-Leninists here have to say.

We constantly get attacked by the Libertarian Socialists, Trotskyists, and Anarchists through these questions:

1) Prove to me that in the USSR the workers owned the means of production, and they were also socialist.

2) In 1921, during 'War Communism', any worker who performed a strike, would be executed... The Anti-MLs continue to claim that this is an Anti-Marxist stance.

3) During a strike at a Stalinist factory in Poznan, Poland, workers marched on Communist Party headquarters singing The Interationale and holding up signs demanding bread. If that isn't a great refutation of Marxism-Leninism, then I don't know what is.

How do we fight back these statements?

I have asked a few well-thought people on this forum about their answers to what I have asked them. I am just interested in what all Marxist-Leninists here have to say.

We constantly get attacked by the Libertarian Socialists, Trotskyists, and Anarchists through these questions:

This is very true on this site, and that why I'm moving to RedStomp

1) Prove to me that in the USSR the workers owned the means of production, and they were also socialist.

1. Is easy to answer, thought you need to understand that I'm only talking about the USSR under Stalin. If you ever seen mission to Moscow you would see a clip about how factory are runned during this time. It could be said that the factory is owned by the union and the goverment is an union. And just like a union the only way the goverment gains income is thought the union feeds. This is why it was unconstitutional for there to be unemployment around this time. As the goverment does not make money off the differnece between the labor cost and the price which it sells the product of there labor, but off the union feeds. If a person was unemployed, they could not pay any feed and therefore the goverment would not make any money. That why it was unconstitutional for there to be unemployment in the USSR under Stalin.

Now you are asking you self, if the goverment made it money off of union feeds, then why set goals, also what happends if they overproduce? The goasl were there to tell the goverment how much money they would get from the feeds. Lets say that the goasl was 100 units sould at the goverment price of $10 a unit. This would mean a pay check of $1000 to those worker. Now let's say that the union feed is 50% of that, then the workers would get $500, and the goverment would get $500. They would take the money out in adavce so that you would not be forced to mail in the money later. Now if these same workers made 110 unit instead of 100, then they would make $1100. The state or goverment would still pay them $500 and take $500 as the goal is apart of the plan. But the extra $100 would go to the worker of the factory. Meaing that units over prodcued, belonged to the factory workers. And therefore menaing that the workers made the differnce between there labor( pay check) and the price it was sold at, not the state.

If they under produced that $500 feed from before would help cover the cost, and stop the factory from being shut down, which would to the function of all unions, job security.

2) In 1921, during 'War Communism', any worker who performed a strike, would be executed... The Anti-MLs continue to claim that this is an Anti-Marxist stance.

3) During a strike at a Stalinist factory in Poznan, Poland, workers marched on Communist Party headquarters singing The Interationale and holding up signs demanding bread. If that isn't a great refutation of Marxism-Leninism, then I don't know what is.

How do we fight back these statements?

2. If the goverment is an union, then I have to ask you what it means when you strike against an union. Just set back and think what it would mean if I was to strike against say a teachers union, what it would mean. At this point anyone should be able to see the problem with this statement.

3. follows the same logic as 2