Debate - Soviet Communism

[dre123]

Hello everyone, I am willing to debate with anyone, and justify the concept and history of Soviet Communism (including Stalinism), if anyone belives that they can beat me (in a civilized manner) on this subject.

[SigniferOne]

Ok then, start with Ukraine and starving of 17 million peasants. Then get to such progress of the Soviet ideal state that by 1989 shelves were empty in the biggest richest city of Russia (Moscow).

[dre123]

Ok then, start with Ukraine and starving of 17 million peasants. Then get to such progress of the Soviet ideal state that by 1989 shelves were empty in the biggest richest city of Russia (Moscow).

Very well artifex, I shall present my arguement, I suggest you read it all before you reply....

BACKGROUND

Since the founding of the United States of America in 1775, they have used false pretexts as an excuse for invading and exploiting other countries, from 1775 to 1918, the excuse they used was 'A native American threat' and the threat of 'Colonialism'. From 1945 to 1995 the excuse was communism', and whe there is no adequite communism left, there is Islamic Extremism.

From the colonial period, they used the justification of having the threat of native american tribes and colonial empires as a pretext, simply for the gold rush. In the modern era, with Islamic extremism (which is obviously engineered), they use this excuse to venture into Afghanistan. On the surface of this all, Afghanistan may seem to be a barren country with no resources, but this is not the truth. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Central Asian countries were 'capitalised', they made agreements with the United States to transport gas and other energy resources, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the Arabian pinensula, where it would be transported to the United States of America. However halfway through the 90's, The ruling power in Afghanistan (The Taliban), suddenly made a u-turn in its policy and made a deal with the central asian republics to ship the resources to Europe instead. This is a major factor for the war in Afghanistan. Yet another major factor for the war in Afghanistan if Globalization (Americanization), for e.g. you hear in the news about public places e.g. hospitals or schools etc getting destroyed, it is not the Afghan government who pays for this, it is the United States of America who rebuilds these buildings (and privatally owns them), thereby the money generated by these establishments will be sent to America, not Afghanistan. Iraq is also a victim of globalization, anyone with a basic sense of logic can see this.

Also, with American military spending, what many people do not realise, is that many nations of the world (western economies) are inderectally reliant on US military spending, if America did not invade countries, or cutback military spending, then the world economy would enter a far greater recession then the great depression, the Asian financial crisis and our modern financial crisis combined. Now we go back to the 40's. After the end of WW2 the United States issued the Marshall Plan, which effectivally gave America control of Western European economies, the Americans took over ownership of many major industries and resources, and due to this, many of the European states economies are effectivally reliant on Americas own economy to run their own. We see this problem the world over, especially in Africa, - America goes into these countries and purchases the industries and resources at pathetically low prices, purposally exploiting these weak nations.

This is the true reason why America feared and stills fears communism, becuase if governments nationalise their industries and resources, then America is not able to get its blood stained hands on them. It is the same situation with the Colonial empires of the time, except they invaded and took everything over until they were kicked out e.g. Africa and India etc.

STALINISM, COMMUNISM & THE COLD WAR

Lenin, Stalin and the other communists realised the concept and impact of Imperialism and what is was doing to the world. They effectivally set the USSR as a counter to Imperialism, a state to which everyone is equal (not like the 99% of people in western nations that work to make to 1% rich) and benefits the workers and also to combat imperialsm in any form neccecary. The USSR's goal was not to set up a pure communist state which co-exists with the imperialist nations of the world. Stalin realised all of this, he had to set up a strong state, free form internal threats, a state which could combat imperialism in every form. He launched the purges to destory the threat of anyone who could threaten the USSR's stablility. His brutal law contributed greatly to this aswell. As for the famines, this may not have been intentional, as collectivization was neccecary for the state to control all aspects of the economy, (as it is in a left-wing society). Unless one can display adeqite evidence that Stalin intentionally killed millions of Ukarinians and other ethnic groups utilising this method then it is just speculation and belief (In the philosophic concept of 'Epistemology' there no comparison to belief and truth (knowledge), Truth i.e. knowledge must utilise a good justification to be knowledge and belief is not truth regardless and therfore does not mean anything except opinion).

To summarise - Stalinism - create a strong Soviet state to combat imperialism (not to create pure communism), annexation of territory - to increase power of Soviet state and remove potential external enemies that pose a threat to communism.

Now we move on to the cold war - In the cold war, the west potrayed the USSR and the Eastern Bloc as the Aggressor, this was infact to say the least, the only Soviet aggression in the war was Afghanistan (1979-1989), while the United States - the so called 'righteous defender of freedom) utilised agression and military action in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Congo, Libya to say a few. So this obviosly proves that the United States was the agressor here. As for Soviet intervention in Eastern Europe, this was to uphold friendly governments, not occupying and annexing neigbhoring states.

Stalin created an initially unified eastern bloc to combat imperalism, not for instituting freedom in eastern europe. The west portays this as the Soviets taking away 'democracy' from these people, infact there is no such thing as true democracy, it is only a facade for controlling people, for e.g. in the united kingdom it is the 606 members of parliament who make the decision to nationalise indistries/resources or go to war, not the 62 million citizens of the country. It is a similar situation in every so called 'democratic state'. Democracy is only a facade.

Anyways to the end of the cold war, people did not realise how important fighting imperialism was/is. They were not willing to live under the soviet regime which is dedicated to fighting imperialism and fighting for true freedom, instead they want a regime to live uinder facade of democracy.

To finish of my presentation of the debate - The United States of America also used communism as excuse to invade countries and spread the plague of globalization. After world war 2, there was no real threat from USSR, there country, well lets say that it is hard to comprehend just how much they suffered. They only had 300 battle hardened divisions in Eastern Europe, there indurstries and economy along with social infrastrucutre was utterly ruined, it posed no true threat the west, expecially since the west posessed the atomic bomb. So there you go - this is my presentation.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Very well artifex, I shall present my arguement, I suggest you read it all before you reply....

BACKGROUND

Since the founding of the United States of America in 1775, they have used false pretexts as an excuse for invading and exploiting other countries, from 1775 to 1918, the excuse they used was 'A native American threat' and the threat of 'Colonialism'. From 1945 to 1995 the excuse was communism', and whe there is no adequite communism left, there is Islamic Extremism.

From the colonial period, they used the justification of having the threat of native american tribes and colonial empires as a pretext, simply for the gold rush. In the modern era, with Islamic extremism (which is obviously engineered), they use this excuse to venture into Afghanistan. On the surface of this all, Afghanistan may seem to be a barren country with no resources, but this is not the truth. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Central Asian countries were 'capitalised', they made agreements with the United States to transport gas and other energy resources, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the Arabian pinensula, where it would be transported to the United States of America. However halfway through the 90's, The ruling power in Afghanistan (The Taliban), suddenly made a u-turn in its policy and made a deal with the central asian republics to ship the resources to Europe instead. This is a major factor for the war in Afghanistan. Yet another major factor for the war in Afghanistan if Globalization (Americanization), for e.g. you hear in the news about public places e.g. hospitals or schools etc getting destroyed, it is not the Afghan government who pays for this, it is the United States of America who rebuilds these buildings (and privatally owns them), thereby the money generated by these establishments will be sent to America, not Afghanistan. Iraq is also a victim of globalization, anyone with a basic sense of logic can see this.

Also, with American military spending, what many people do not realise, is that many nations of the world (western economies) are inderectally reliant on US military spending, if America did not invade countries, or cutback military spending, then the world economy would enter a far greater recession then the great depression, the Asian financial crisis and our modern financial crisis combined. Now we go back to the 40's. After the end of WW2 the United States issued the Marshall Plan, which effectivally gave America control of Western European economies, the Americans took over ownership of many major industries and resources, and due to this, many of the European states economies are effectivally reliant on Americas own economy to run their own. We see this problem the world over, especially in Africa, - America goes into these countries and purchases the industries and resources at pathetically low prices, purposally exploiting these weak nations.

This is the true reason why America feared and stills fears communism, becuase if governments nationalise their industries and resources, then America is not able to get its blood stained hands on them. It is the same situation with the Colonial empires of the time, except they invaded and took everything over until they were kicked out e.g. Africa and India etc.

STALINISM, COMMUNISM & THE COLD WAR

Lenin, Stalin and the other communists realised the concept and impact of Imperialism and what is was doing to the world. They effectivally set the USSR as a counter to Imperialism, a state to which everyone is equal (not like the 99% of people in western nations that work to make to 1% rich) and benefits the workers and also to combat imperialsm in any form neccecary. The USSR's goal was not to set up a pure communist state which co-exists with the imperialist nations of the world. Stalin realised all of this, he had to set up a strong state, free form internal threats, a state which could combat imperialism in every form. He launched the purges to destory the threat of anyone who could threaten the USSR's stablility. His brutal law contributed greatly to this aswell. As for the famines, this may not have been intentional, as collectivization was neccecary for the state to control all aspects of the economy, (as it is in a left-wing society). Unless one can display adeqite evidence that Stalin intentionally killed millions of Ukarinians and other ethnic groups utilising this method then it is just speculation and belief (In the philosophic concept of 'Epistemology' there no comparison to belief and truth (knowledge), Truth i.e. knowledge must utilise a good justification to be knowledge and belief is not truth regardless and therfore does not mean anything except opinion).

To summarise - Stalinism - create a strong Soviet state to combat imperialism (not to create pure communism), annexation of territory - to increase power of Soviet state and remove potential external enemies that pose a threat to communism.

Now we move on to the cold war - In the cold war, the west potrayed the USSR and the Eastern Bloc as the Aggressor, this was infact to say the least, the only Soviet aggression in the war was Afghanistan (1979-1989), while the United States - the so called 'righteous defender of freedom) utilised agression and military action in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Congo, Libya to say a few. So this obviosly proves that the United States was the agressor here. As for Soviet intervention in Eastern Europe, this was to uphold friendly governments, not occupying and annexing neigbhoring states.

Stalin created an initially unified eastern bloc to combat imperalism, not for instituting freedom in eastern europe. The west portays this as the Soviets taking away 'democracy' from these people, infact there is no such thing as true democracy, it is only a facade for controlling people, for e.g. in the united kingdom it is the 606 members of parliament who make the decision to nationalise indistries/resources or go to war, not the 62 million citizens of the country. It is a similar situation in every so called 'democratic state'. Democracy is only a facade.

Anyways to the end of the cold war, people did not realise how important fighting imperialism was/is. They were not willing to live under the soviet regime which is dedicated to fighting imperialism and fighting for true freedom, instead they want a regime to live uinder facade of democracy.

To finish of my presentation of the debate - The United States of America also used communism as excuse to invade countries and spread the plague of globalization. After world war 2, there was no real threat from USSR, there country, well lets say that it is hard to comprehend just how much they suffered. They only had 300 battle hardened divisions in Eastern Europe, there indurstries and economy along with social infrastrucutre was utterly ruined, it posed no true threat the west, expecially since the west posessed the atomic bomb. So there you go - this is my presentation.

Anti imperialist bruda do you know what the USSR did in 1945???

[dre123]

Yes I am quite familiar with what they did in 1945, they alone, and I emphasise ALONE, beat the greatest active menace the world has ever seen, Then created a communist bloc in eastern europe to combat imperialism, and to create a buffer zone - if you read about the eastern front in world war 2, you shall realise why.....

Perhaps you have heard of this nation called the United States of America.

I agree with you OneArmedScissor

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Yes I am quite familiar with what they did in 1945, they alone, and I emphasise ALONE, beat the greatest active menace the world has ever seen, Then created a communist bloc in eastern europe to combat imperialism, and to create a buffer zone - if you read about the eastern front in world war 2, you shall realise why.....

Buffer? Combat imperialism??? They executed the whole Polish government in exhile, and invaded Czecholosvakia when the government and people wanted to seperate from the communist bloc. They alone beat nazi germany??? What about Britain in North africa, stopping them from getting oil in Middle east to help in fight, how bout US releaving north africa, and Western Europe for you. Just because you had most casualties doesnt mean you won alone. Also we releaved Japan from you. They could have invaded Siberia if we hadnt helped. Again I rest my case.

[Nikitn]

Ok then, start with Ukraine and starving of 17 million peasants. Then get to such progress of the Soviet ideal state that by 1989 shelves were empty in the biggest richest city of Russia (Moscow).

SigniferOne, this garbage was already debunked god damn it. You didn't even have the balls to stay in the argument and admit you were wrong, you just come back to every thread and post the garbage one more time.

I explain it one more time:

1. Starvation happened due to confiscation of grain. It wasn't an act to kill off as many people as possible. And "20 million" is the largest estimate. The real estimates go from 8 million to 20 million.
2. By 1989 USSR was at it's breaking point. Everything went to hell. It's like asking why was the USA so weak and poor in 1863?

My finishing argument: USSR was a very decent country to live in, post 1956 (and at least to pre late 1980's). No, I couldn't give a about what some wannabe expert living in USA thinks. Dre123, just ignore him, he has been debunked enough times.

[SigniferOne]

Starvation happened due to confiscation of grain. It wasn't an act to kill off as many people as possible.

I don't care if it happened due to them having warm and fuzzy feelings. People were hungry, and they ripped the food out of their hands, to feed their own cronies in Moscow and the surrounding regions. They killed 17 million people.

2. By 1989 USSR was at it's breaking point. Everything went to hell. It's like asking why was the USA so weak and poor in 1863?

I thought the Soviet system was supposed to work? The USA system was never "weak and poor" in 1863. There was a Civil War as in, actual armies killing other armies. But there was never an absence of food on the shelves, even during the worst moment. Take any awful moment of the war, and the people in Massachusetts or in Houston were still well off. Take a look at the movie Shenandoah: even the farmers in war-torn Virginia were living quite well unless some army marched literally through them. Yeah that compares really well with Russia of 1989 where people living during peacetime were starving simply because there wasn't food anywhere to be found.

My finishing argument: USSR was a very decent country to live in (at least pre 1980's).

This simply falls flat when looking at all the facts and the testimony of people who lived in that time. All of them, without exception, say that food was never on the shelves, clothing and material necessities were in great scarcity, and this was in Moscow the richest city of the "Union".

[dre123]

I don't care if it happened due to them having warm and fuzzy feelings. People were hungry, and they ripped the food out of their hands, to feed their own cronies in Moscow and the surrounding regions. They killed 17 million people.



I thought the Soviet system was supposed to work? The USA system was never "weak and poor" in 1863. There was a Civil War as in, actual armies killing other armies. But there was never an absence of food on the shelves, even during the worst moment. Take any awful moment of the war, and the people in Massachusetts or in Houston were still well off. Take a look at the movie Shenandoah: even the farmers in war-torn Virginia were living quite well unless some army marched literally through them. Yeah that compares really well with Russia of 1989 where people living during peacetime were starving simply because there wasn't food anywhere to be found.




This simply falls flat when looking at all the facts and the testimony of people who lived in that time. All of them, without exception, say that food was never on the shelves, clothing and material necessities were in great scarcity, and this was in Moscow the richest city of the "Union".

The Soviet Government initiated collectivization, it is a vital part of communism. You also make it sound biased. Also no one cares about what you think, we only care about facts here, not some stupid film.

Also the soviet system did not get a chance to work, as we were busy fgihting of you imperialist scum, you americans explotiing the world for you own benefit and maknig up pretexts to invade countries for your own gain. We never had the good opportunity, it is as I stated, Soviet Union was created, it had to indutrialize and sort out so many problems, then we thrust into WW2 and then without any time for respite we are thrust into cold war.

Ask any person in Russia nowdays if they would have prefered the soviet system to exist and they will say yes, they miss the soviet prestiege and power, also there was no food and in the mid 80's because of that dickheads gorbachevs rule. He cannot govern at all, he is more pathetic them you Americans.

[Sebdeas]

Also the soviet system did not get a chance to work, as we were busy fgihting of you imperialist scum, you americans explotiing the world for you own benefit and maknig up pretexts to invade countries for your own gain. We never had the good opportunity, it is as I stated, Soviet Union was created, it had to indutrialize and sort out so many problems, then we thrust into WW2 and then without any time for respite we are thrust into cold war.

Ask any person in Russia nowdays if they would have prefered the soviet system to exist and they will say yes, they miss the soviet prestiege and power, also there was no food and in the mid 80's because of that dickheads gorbachevs rule. He cannot govern at all, he is more pathetic them you Americans.

The Soviets and Americans+allies are both responsible for starting a Cold War. The three leaders of the allied nations divided Europe into spheres of influence, creating two major powers who outside of WW2 could never have worked together even during the final stages of WW2 mistrusted each other. During certain moments the Soviets were most responsible for some of the more hostile moments in the
Cold War, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Blockade.

And you might say that the Russians want the Soviet Union back, but if you would ask the same in Eastern and Central Europe the response would be the opposite. The 'Solidarity' movement might have been a successful movement against Soviet oppression but before that you had the 'Prague Spring' and the Hungarian revolution of 1956, both struck down violently by the Soviets.

[Nikitn]

I don't care if it happened due to them having warm and fuzzy feelings. People were hungry, and they ripped the food out of their hands, to feed their own cronies in Moscow and the surrounding regions. They killed 17 million people.

The grain quotas were increased dramatically to rebuild, and then expand the Soviet industry. Arguably, that was the reason USSR won WW2 (the industry).

What took Great Britain 100 years, Stalin did in 10 years (at the cost of blood). He completely industrialized USSR, transforming it from a backwater, broken and ruined peasant state, to a modern Super Power. While he was brutal, and did much that harmed USSR, it is not all black and white like you think.

I thought the Soviet system was supposed to work? The USA system was never "weak and poor" in 1863. There was a Civil War as in, actual armies killing other armies. But there was never an absence of food on the shelves, even during the worst moment.

Haha, are you ing kidding me? There was no "absence of food" in the US civil war? Both sides looted the hell out of each other, and burned crops. Hey, but what about the 30's? They weren't all fine and good to the US?

Take any awful moment of the war, and the people in Massachusetts or in Houston were still well off. Take a look at the movie Shenandoah: even the farmers in war-torn Virginia were living quite well unless some army marched literally through them.

Yeah sure. I guess all the civilian casualties were simply because of the fighting, huh?

Stop kidding yourself.

Yeah that compares really well with Russia of 1989 where people living during peacetime were starving simply because there wasn't food anywhere to be found.

Again, complete, and total garbage.
1. NO ONE was ever, ever starving in USSR, post Stalin era. Even if there was little food (or anything else for that matter) in the shelves.
2. And again, in 1989-1991 USSR was completely disintegrating. If you had any seance of knowledge (or even an actual will to learn something), you would try to be objective. Take a time when USSR was relatively stable, ie 1960's-1985. There was no "lack of food" on the shelves in those times.

This simply falls flat when looking at all the facts and the testimony of people who lived in that time.

Oh sure..

I actually live in a post Soviet country. One would think that, uhm, pretty much my entire family who lived in the USSR knows better then you, some random New Yorker bad mouthing. If you want to know the truth, ask people here. I can name a few, Czar, Pavlik, Salvotorel, Ivan the terrible etc. Just stop it. This ignorance is simply provocative.

All of them, without exception, say that food was never on the shelves,

Didn't I tell you not to confuse fantasy with reality? Dude, your quotes are almost as signature worthy as publius's quotes lol.

clothing and material necessities were in great scarcity, and this was in Moscow the richest city of the "Union".

Uhm, Moscow wasn't the richest city. Again, completely wrong. The richest area was actually Balticum. It was a very popular tourist resort.

As for the rest of your trolling, I have answered it above. Dude, just drop the argument. Things like cloth and food were in abundance in USSR. Thus so many fat old women everywhere.

[Atterdag]

OK. Let's try to focus on not throwing any more ad hominens, insults and personal comments for now fellows.

[SigniferOne]

That's very nice, but you didn't say a single thing about what I asked.

[dre123]

yes I did, I explained the famines, I forgot about economic stagnation, however I am not an economicst, I am only 17 year old student, I will study economics A level in September...I expalin that then, anyways this is a debate, so please justify the west....

But basically the economic stagnation was due to the reforms, brought in by the stupid in idiot Gorbachev, namley - peresroika and glasnost.

[dogukan]

dude I just read the background...we are on the same road, same thoughts. Check out the thread on American imperialism. Pretty common these days.

[dre123]

dude I just read the background...we are on the same road, same thoughts. Check out the thread on American imperialism. Pretty common these days.

can you please provide me with link to American imperialism thread please

[OneArmedScissor]

More people have died from the ideas of Adam Smith than those of Karl Marx.
hth

[dre123]

More people have died from the ideas of Adam Smith than those of Karl Marx.
hth

I agree 100%, more people have suffered under capitalism then communism.

[Tiberios]

Good luck trying to justify the most brutal and oppressive system after Nazi Germany.

[tonymurphy1888]

I agree 100%, more people have suffered under capitalism then communism.

Don't mean to be rude but thats 100%