No, I dislike all Authoritarian regimes. I dislike single party systems.
We’re discussing systems of the past of course, not possible variations or was a new Socialism moght structure its self.
But the problem is that Capitalism isn’t going down without a fight, and if there’s a fight there will likely be an Authoritarian one party system after, that performs a period of white/red terror, that’s difficult to avoid.
It’s a hard problem for revolutionary forms of Socialism.
No, I dislike all Authoritarian regimes. I dislike single party systems.
Living in WW2 Belarus would cure you from that centrist hyperidealist nonsense. Or maybe not, there would be statistically 1/3 chance nazis would murder you.
Today’s national income and GDP accounting formats are compiled in keeping with this anticlassical reaction depicting the FIRE [Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate] sector and its allied rent-seeking sectors as an addition to national income, not a subtrahend. Interest, rents, and monopoly prices all are counted as earnings—as if all income is earned as intrinsic parts of industrial capitalism, not predatory extraction as overhead property and financial claims.
When the socialist states privatized what had been public—which was nearly everything—and sold them at fire sale prices to the neocolonial capitalists of the imperial core, that would have been included in the GPD as well. What did that get them but a new class of local oligarchs? Just bonkers.
If you compare the GDP of suddenly collapsed, suddenly capitalist states—that were being actively pillaged by the Global North—to their GDP 30 years later, of course line go up. But that’s a very different comparison to their situations pre-collapse.
Its why they defeated the nazis, who had a 50-100 year industrialization lead when the USSR started doing a command economy. The USSR also ended up liberalizing in its last decade, creating the circumstances for a coup that resulted in balkanization and massively decreased living standards.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
That’s the nature of Authoritarian regimes. Not very working class of them.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
You are mistaking the movie enemy at the gates for a history lesson, or are absorbing myths that ultimately originate with that movie… During particularly desperate times troops would have to split rifles during training. General order 227 created penal detachments for officers who kept ordering retreats without cause, and created blocking units to turn back retreating units. They weren’t machine gunning conscripts in the back.
Also even if not one step back was as US propaganda claims, every step back allowed the nazis more population to exterminate or enslave. The Soviets lost 19 million civilians, exterminated by the nazis.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary, it’s a propaganda film. In true fact while the Soviets did have a large number of conscripts and did suffer supply issues early in the war, at no point were they sending under-equipped battalions into the front line to die for no reason, and the thing about shooting those who retreated only applied to officers who ordered a retreat without proper cause (you’ll find that every other army in World War 2 had a similar protocol).
We still see the same “throw soldiers at it” mentality in the war in Ukraine today, Russia is just like that. Nothing particularly to do with Socialism, more Authoritarianism.
Likewise we see poorly equipped troops in Russian forces today too. Same thing different era. It’s just the mentality there.
The USSR killed 80-ish percent of the nazi troops, and suffered 26 million casualties, mostly civilians exterminated by the nazis. They were mainly responsible for the victory and suffered the heaviest losses, including a lot of the lower level communist organization whose absence lead to the bureaucratic centralization (that Stalin opposed heavily before his death) that let corruption gradually take over the project.
Yeah, when you organize your army based on politics and not on, you know, military capability, you end up sucking at war and need to make it up in numbers. You ignore intelligence of imminent invasion you let hundreds of thousands of troops get encircled and begging the Yankees for resources.
Lots of Authoritarian one party economies are, Hitler’s, China’s, Ghengis Khan’s, Ancient Rome.
You can really make leaps and bounds with forced labour and a Stalinist regime… But I don’t want to live under such a system, nor would I automatically trust how it’s applied.
Weird how the socialist command economies lead to a massive increase in literacy, life expectancy, women’s rights, access to education, doctors per person, decreased infant and maternal mortality, I could go on.
Almost like there is a difference between a capitalist command economy like the nazis did and a socialist command economy. Wonder what the difference between those three word phrases is, hmmmmm 🤔🤔🤔
Gulags were a thing, labor camps have been a thing, vocational education and training centers, have been a thing, north koreas camps have been a thing, siberian labor camps have been a thing, pol pots torture camps have been a thing.
Authoritarian one party systems tend to have political prisoners, and institutions, camps, or prisons where they’re dealt with.
These are things the proletariat and lumpenproletariat (and other classes) get subjected too for political reasons, I’m saying I don’t want that happening. That it’s a bad thing.
I didn’t say they were conspiracies. I said conspiracies were a thing. Just like you didn’t say shit about all the scary terms you threw around. I’m supposed to look up ‘political prisoners’ and then divine what your point is? You’re fucking dumb.
Authoritarian central planning sucks…
Workers having shares in companies and or the means of production doesn’t.
You hate it because it defeated the nazis or…?
Auth left and Auth right have had all of human history and they’ve blown it. Don’t you think it’s time for someone else to give it a go?
The political compass turned you into a fucking moron, dude.
No, I dislike all Authoritarian regimes. I dislike single party systems.
We’re discussing systems of the past of course, not possible variations or was a new Socialism moght structure its self.
But the problem is that Capitalism isn’t going down without a fight, and if there’s a fight there will likely be an Authoritarian one party system after, that performs a period of white/red terror, that’s difficult to avoid.
It’s a hard problem for revolutionary forms of Socialism.
Living in WW2 Belarus would cure you from that centrist hyperidealist nonsense. Or maybe not, there would be statistically 1/3 chance nazis would murder you.
The one party system is going to perform white and red terrors?
There’s always more than one side in a revolution, and there’s always massacres.
The soviet economy was insane(ly good)!
https://youtu.be/Hcl3R-yARX8?si=Z2Us5pkG9a7FBPUw
Well sourced easily digestible video on it.
Is that why they won the cold war? And all Eastern European countries experience explosive growth post communism?
You live in a world of pure fantasy.
Cool feels. The facts are that GDP has grown more than 1000% (not a typo) in the 30 years post communism.
Again, fantasy.
Who calculated the GPD of a command-driven, non-capitalist state, and how did they do it? It’s incomparable using such a metric: apples & oranges.
And regardless, GDP is a garbage metric. All sorts of unproductive income is included, things that are not part of the real economy.
Finance Capitalism versus Industrial Capitalism: The Rentier Resurgence and Takeover
When the socialist states privatized what had been public—which was nearly everything—and sold them at fire sale prices to the neocolonial capitalists of the imperial core, that would have been included in the GPD as well. What did that get them but a new class of local oligarchs? Just bonkers.
If you compare the GDP of suddenly collapsed, suddenly capitalist states—that were being actively pillaged by the Global North—to their GDP 30 years later, of course line go up. But that’s a very different comparison to their situations pre-collapse.
Is any metric that’s unfavorable immediately garbage? Life expectancy? Number of political prisoners? HDI?
Its why they defeated the nazis, who had a 50-100 year industrialization lead when the USSR started doing a command economy. The USSR also ended up liberalizing in its last decade, creating the circumstances for a coup that resulted in balkanization and massively decreased living standards.
They defeated the Nazis by throwing conscripts into a meat grinder regardless of whether they even had a weapon, and by threatening to shoot them if they tried to retreat.
That’s the nature of Authoritarian regimes. Not very working class of them.
You are mistaking the movie enemy at the gates for a history lesson, or are absorbing myths that ultimately originate with that movie… During particularly desperate times troops would have to split rifles during training. General order 227 created penal detachments for officers who kept ordering retreats without cause, and created blocking units to turn back retreating units. They weren’t machine gunning conscripts in the back.
Also even if not one step back was as US propaganda claims, every step back allowed the nazis more population to exterminate or enslave. The Soviets lost 19 million civilians, exterminated by the nazis.
Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary, it’s a propaganda film. In true fact while the Soviets did have a large number of conscripts and did suffer supply issues early in the war, at no point were they sending under-equipped battalions into the front line to die for no reason, and the thing about shooting those who retreated only applied to officers who ordered a retreat without proper cause (you’ll find that every other army in World War 2 had a similar protocol).
I’m sure we’ve seen the towering number of deaths from the USSR meatgrinders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU
We still see the same “throw soldiers at it” mentality in the war in Ukraine today, Russia is just like that. Nothing particularly to do with Socialism, more Authoritarianism.
Likewise we see poorly equipped troops in Russian forces today too. Same thing different era. It’s just the mentality there.
I thought a massive international effort defeated the nazis, including strategic bombing, embargos and lend-lease. Weird.
The USSR killed 80-ish percent of the nazi troops, and suffered 26 million casualties, mostly civilians exterminated by the nazis. They were mainly responsible for the victory and suffered the heaviest losses, including a lot of the lower level communist organization whose absence lead to the bureaucratic centralization (that Stalin opposed heavily before his death) that let corruption gradually take over the project.
Yeah, when you organize your army based on politics and not on, you know, military capability, you end up sucking at war and need to make it up in numbers. You ignore intelligence of imminent invasion you let hundreds of thousands of troops get encircled and begging the Yankees for resources.
Consider not learning your ww2 history from pop culture
So, no argument at all? Just a downvote and an ad-hominem? I’m disappointed…
Lots of Authoritarian one party economies are, Hitler’s, China’s, Ghengis Khan’s, Ancient Rome.
You can really make leaps and bounds with forced labour and a Stalinist regime… But I don’t want to live under such a system, nor would I automatically trust how it’s applied.
Here’s some photos of some gulag laborers digging the White Sea to Baltic canal for some extra bread and meat rations: https://allthatsinteresting.com/white-sea-baltic-canal
Insanely “good” economies are often created from poverty, serfdom, slavery, and forced labour. That’s not how I’d define a “good” economy though.
Just to note; Capitalism also has this problem of paying workers the minimum in order to transfer wealth to profit/owners.
Weird how the socialist command economies lead to a massive increase in literacy, life expectancy, women’s rights, access to education, doctors per person, decreased infant and maternal mortality, I could go on.
Almost like there is a difference between a capitalist command economy like the nazis did and a socialist command economy. Wonder what the difference between those three word phrases is, hmmmmm 🤔🤔🤔
Lol
God I wish
reeducation camps were a thingPolitical prisoners are a thing.
Gulags were a thing, labor camps have been a thing, vocational education and training centers, have been a thing, north koreas camps have been a thing, siberian labor camps have been a thing, pol pots torture camps have been a thing.
Authoritarian one party systems tend to have political prisoners, and institutions, camps, or prisons where they’re dealt with.
These are things the proletariat and lumpenproletariat (and other classes) get subjected too for political reasons, I’m saying I don’t want that happening. That it’s a bad thing.
You aren’t saying anything except bringing up scary terms you heard. Conspiracies are a thing. War profiteers are a thing. El Chupacabra is a thing.
You’re just talking shit without any specific accusations. Just vibes.
You’re free to look up these various systems of political punishment. Just answering 'theyre conspiracy theories ’ isn’t a convincing argument.
You have to win people to your cause if you want your systems to win.
I didn’t say they were conspiracies. I said conspiracies were a thing. Just like you didn’t say shit about all the scary terms you threw around. I’m supposed to look up ‘political prisoners’ and then divine what your point is? You’re fucking dumb.
Ha, this guy doesn’t think one party authoritarian states have political prisoners.