Communism

**KirillMazur** · 07-19-2020, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by PaleoEuropean

Yea but real communists were just as radical in many ways, look at Trotsky, he was probably one of the purest communists but had the same capacity for destruction and harm as the others did. I think Russians need to find their pride again, find themselves again. Russians like African Americans grew up relying on the system so they see their benefactors harm against them as something positive. Are there socialist principles that are noble and work? Sure I can agree with that but Communism outright is just giving up power for a slight sense of security which to me is more dangerous than anything. Security and prosperity are the responsibility of the individual not the state.

Stalin's idea of building a fair and prosperous society cannot die. It is the core of the development of any society in general. Another thing is that people's ideas about justice and prosperity often do not coincide and change over time. And as for the icons and tsars, it's Russian traditions, sir !!!
I agree that tyranny is justified only in the most extreme cases, when it is decided whether the country will live or die. For example, during the Second World War. But after the post-war reconstruction of the country and the transition of the economy to a peaceful track, Stalin planned to remove the CPSU from the leading role (financial flows) and give power to the people's Soviets (power of workers' collectives, local self-government). It was planned to leave the CPSU in a purely ideological role. But somehow suddenly and strangely he died.

**KirillMazur** · 07-20-2020, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by PaleoEuropean

Yea but real communists were just as radical in many ways, look at Trotsky, he was probably one of the purest communists

You shouldn't mix American citizen Trotsky and Stalin into one heap.
Trotsky is an obvious left-liberal, globalist backed by international bankers.
He planned to use the Russian people as "firewood" for the world revolution (early project of globalization), and the territory of Russia as a launching pad. Of course, the further existence of the Russian people and Russian culture was not foreseen by Trotsky, and in the event of a successful outcome of the world revolution, the same fate awaited the rest of the white peoples.
In short, he wanted to clear the territory of Russia of people and join it to the global system of the division of labor as a resource colony already THEN. Exactly what liberals and democrats have been trying to do here since 1991, but their time is coming to an end.
I think that I should not explain that in all territories where the world revolution would have been successful, there would have been no traditional culture, religion, and the population itself would have irrevocably lost their self-identification.
Now let's see what Stalin did. Strengthening the country's sovereignty, expanding influence, preserving national cultures and religions, industrialization, development of territories, development of science and technology, cleansing of agents of foreign influence, huge population growth (including Slavs, despite the daily shootings of billions of people

), victory over the Nazi " superhumans "(whose plans largely coincided with those of Trotsky), etc. The complete opposite of Trotsky.
For people like Trotsky, we will always find our own Mercader, and in modern Russia too, sooner or later.

**KirillMazur** · 07-30-2020, 01:23 AM

There are 4 levels of labor motivation for a Homo sapiens. In fact, there are more levels, but let's stop on these four for now. Enough for an example.
1) Violent (When forced to work with the help of force. Slavery in its pure form).
2) Monetary (You get monetary reward for your work. Capitalism in its pure form).
3) Ideological (When you work for an idea. For the future. For the highest good. Communism as it is).
4) Faith / Religion (When you stop doubting your work. Religion in the full sense of this concept. I will only say that there is nothing to do in space without Religion. Moreover, no one will let our breed into space, [they] will not allow it. Until we reach this level)
What is it all about? That's about each previous level can easily destroy the next. To transform further, it must consume the opponent. Capitalism is capable of destroying Communism; it is below it in the chain. But Communism cannot be destroyed by violent means/slavery (level 1), they are at different levels. In its turn, in order for communism to develop, it is necessary to destroy faith, get rid of all kinds of [old] religion, and only then create a common one for all. In its turn, Faith is not dangerous for Capitalism, but slavery (level 1) is quite capable of destroying it.

**KirillMazur** · 08-23-2020, 03:04 PM

In fact, there were no winners in the Cold War. Mutual destruction has occurred.
The meaning of the Cold War can be described as follows: we showed their working class how it can live if the appetite of the elite is curtailed, and they showed our elite how it can live if their appetite is not curtailed.
They had an advantage - a colonial system that allows them to maintain "capitalism with a human face", feeding their working class at the expense of the colonies. Accordingly, they were the first to achieve their goal (the corruption of our elite).
But this is not a victory. The USSR managed to do the main thing - undermined the colonial system. We are seeing the result now. Their perspective is anti-human, real capitalism, with the squeezing of the working class (their own, local, and not in the colonies on the other side of the planet), mass executions and famines. And the corresponding consequences. That is, the goal of the USSR in the Cold War has also been achieved (or will be achieved in the near future).

Ülev · 08-23-2020, 03:09 PM

post-colonial countries like Poland, Hungary or "Czechoslovakia" are happy that no longer in that bloc, East-Bloc

Ülev · 08-23-2020, 03:15 PM

the worst thing in communism is collectivism

**KirillMazur** · 08-23-2020, 03:31 PM

It's not about nostalgia, but about the fact that the communists were right: capitalism is a bastard system that for 400 years systematically kept on slavery, colonialism and genocide - until the Bolsheviks forced the bourgeoisie to carry out social democratic reforms. It is by no means a coincidence that only in the last 100 years has capitalism been more or less humane towards humans (and even then inconsistently).
The current departure from the welfare state shows everyone that the Soviet Union was the only deterrent to capitalism. Now it is gone, and all the glaring contradictions of capitalism have come out.
Of course, the USSR is so far the best thing that happened to mankind, and therefore in any case it left a good memory of itself.
Bastard capitalism has been killing hundreds of millions of people since the 16th century. The Indians alone killed between 70 and 100 million.
In India, 2 million died from systematic famines every three years, from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Not to mention the victims of colonialism and fascism. The bourgeois revolution in the 17-18th century cost England 1/4 of the population, and Germany it cost 1/3 of the population.
The socialist revolution did not cost Russia the life of even one-tenth of the population.
Everything is learned in comparison, so there is no need to justify the crimes of capitalist regimes by the few "victims of socialism". From the point of view of humanism, the bourgeoisie have no moral right to even stutter about the inhumanity of the USSR, hiding behind false human rights and democracy.
At the same time, if you look at the documents, 600 thousand were shot for the entire time, 3-4 million served in the gulag, and if you look at the personal files, it turns out that they were sitting deservedly, despite the fact that the country's population was constantly growing, up to 200 million. And the standard of living was growing. Here is the paradox.

**KirillMazur** · 08-23-2020, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ülev

the worst thing in communism is collectivism

Individualism. It is called beautifully, but in fact it is moody irresponsibility to fellow citizens due to the artificial elimination of common goals among the citizens of the country.
In view of this, the Stalinist (cooperative) model of the state is impossible. And the current model of the state inevitably leads to the degradation of the state and its death.
In the west, this agony has been going on since the First World War. Now Russia is joining the west.
In general, it is difficult to argue what is more effective, because first you need to decide - for whom it is more effective.
Since the population in Russia is not united by common goals, then there are no measures of efficiency of the state for them (conventionally, one part of the population earns on the other part, collecting taxes and monetizing social security).
First, you need to bring the goals of the population in the state to a common denominator, and only after that ask your question about the effectiveness of the state model.