4pol stumped by commie on tinder

...

They did

They had.

The state did, and the state controlled every aspect of the Soviet economy. Workers as individuals or en masse had no real power.

This is why we posadists must win

...

Fuck these are shitty arguments. Embarrassing to hear as a socialist.

and even those shitty arguments stumped Holla Forums

what does that say about them?

I really like Nationalist View, he just won't stand for bullshit arguments even on his own side.

While I enjoy Holla Forums sperging out, this just makes me sad all I've met on tinder are lolberts and liberals.

prove it

No true Scotsman would call for moar leadership then claim the revolution was too top-heavy

...

Obligatory

what does it say about us for not recognizing that's all it takes to debate an idiot?

You do realize all ideologies would break down under these conditions and nothing would be knowable, or defensible?

What?

Not really? I doubt anyone would say Sweden is not an example of Social Democracy, or Nazi Germany of Not Socialism.

This is bs. People were very happy in the USSR. Only a few corrupt idiots wanted to live in the west so they could eat bananas and wear levi's jeans.

Fuck outta here with dat gay shit nigga

...

Seconding this. What is this vulgarism? It's like she never read Bordiga.

Lenin stated the USSR was state-capitalism.

The USSR was state capitalism. Leninists believe simply that the "revolutionary period" between Capitalism and Communism is Socialism, which allows them to claim that Capitalism is Socialism, just like how the Chinese claim their free market predatory capitalism is Socialism, because the "Vanguard" is in control and they are "working towards Communism" it's apparently Socialism.

This ignores that Socialism IS a economic and social period that is distinct from Capitalism. State Capitalism is not Socialism, it's State Capitalism, it has every single mechanic of Capitalism in place aside from private individual ownership.

FFS the USSR produced according to profit.

So if the people in command of countries with the avowed goal of transitioning to socialism ultimately failed to transition to socialism, what does that say about socialism as a definite, achievable goal?

That perhaps we should try with less bloody revolutions and authoritarian takeovers smh fam

It says that in a world dominated by Capitalism, escaping Capitalism is not easy and simple.

It says that the revolution was isolated.

...

...

It says that the material conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia at that time, and the Bolsheviks were fully aware of this. This is why the Soviet Union engaged in numerous Five Year Plans to advance industry. The industrial base that existed under capitalism in Western Europe and which is a prerequisite for the creation of socialism did not exist in Russia. They started several steps behind their Western European counterparts, and given that that was the case they did remarkably well. They increased the standard of living, achieved universal employment and provided higher education to the masses, all while spreading industry and making impressive scientific advances. They did not achieve socialism because the political will to establish it had dissipated at the moment it had become realizable.

Why, that socialism is impossible, of course! I can think of no other rational interpretation of these events. Why do we even have historians in the first place, because its not like history is at all a nuanced or ambiguous thing that requires conscientious interpretation or the barest modicum of study.

...

Happiness is informed by material circumstance. It's cool if people are happy, but a society as undemocratic as the USSR could and did lead to repression.

As socialists, we should support the USSR for what it stood for rather than what it was in practice. Even after the Stalin period, the artistic restriction and capitalistic exploitation were neither acceptable nor necessary to further the socialist cause.

If I try to bake cakes by pouring gas over dough and setting it aflame, does that mean that cakes cannot be baked?

What did he mean by this?

Well if basically every single one of them tried the exact same ROUTE to socialism, it says "hey maybe that's a fucking shitty route to socialism."