What is Facism

"education" has a broad definition
the men who executed Socrates for heresy were some of the most "educated" men of their time

Fascism is good because OP would get shot for being a retarded untermensch

Why should I waste my time on your stupid mental gymnastics article?
Like I said, Fascism is always neoliberal bullshit in the real world and that's all that matters.

You sound like a 20 year old aspie undergrad.

t. Holla Forums conversely trusting colleges to cherry pick for their info graphics from pop-sci, but also going back and saying education in general at all is jew lies

he was totally asking for it fam

oh im not OP
really need ID's here

remember something like 70% of all psychological research had to be thrown out internationally because the experiments couldnt be replicated?
how many people are walking around with degrees they received for producing a thesis based on research that cant be replicated

holy shit there's not a single milligram of testosterone among them

What with that guy's beret? Isn't that the CNT/FAI cap?

I know social sciences have replication issues but 70% sounds incredibly high and quite frankly made up.

typical

Meant to ask for source.

I need some explanation

No I don't remember this, in fact this sounds like a lead up to you selling me some mouse bones, a prayer, and homeopathic remedies

If getting a degree is so easy why is everyone on Holla Forums a neet and everyone here in college

Shouldn't you people be showing us how superior you are at mathematics

that's because the guy in the middle of the pic ate all the red pills

the high amount is why it was so much of a problem
if the data cant be replicated your research is bollocks, it cant be applied

whos guilty of strawmanning here?

this is correct
fascism isn't an economically focused ideology

Still no source, your claim is getting sketchier by the post.

You're right, the fact that you just pulled a number out of your ass because you half baked remembered it on a thread in Holla Forums is a legitimate problem.

How can people be so stupid? It's a problem.

How could I strawman you when you have no argument other than rank anti-intellectualism?

Except capitalism is not a political ideology. This fallacy of composition is doing you no favours and just aids in fuelling the false dichotomy: anything that has private property isn't capitalism, there are off-shoots and deviations of capitalism that branch out into different schools of thought. You can put a Monetarist and a fascist in the same room and they would kill each other, but they're both capitalist to you because private property exists. Very reductionist.

Yet the shitty article you link to mentions already in the third paragraph that
So what is it? Sort yourself out!

Nope
Seems very subjective and spooky.
0/10
So what already exists
Spooky
Indeed
Strawmen
Stopped reading.

Fairly certain that's what happened in the Soviet Union. The 'counter-revolutionaries' (read: disenfranchised workers) were sent to forced labour camps without their consent. It's going off of what actually happened in reality, not what ought to have happened. Or were all the technological and social advances of the USSR due to state capitalism? Hmm…

...

Pick one.

Ah, excellent. So all the innovations that occurred during their reign can be attributed to state capitalism? I would imagine China would fall in this category, too? Then I guess from the standpoint of innovation socially, technologically, and economically, all that success (or was it just an abject failure in all regards? We will never know, the narrative is always changing…) is at the feet of capitalism.
Hmm…

the key issue in regards to describing the
"economic system" in the article is…

who determines what is or is not a positive impact? this is not stated but it is implied it would be subject to the whims of its ruler. this is no different from monarchy or any form of absolute totalitarian. without some degree of social contract from the people and an agreed method of value all economic power is vested in the whims of one person a historic recipe for disaster.

Socialism.
Also, invention and innovation happen irregardless of economic/political.

What the fuck are you smoking?

youtu.be/ax7wcShvrus

Fascism is about working together to attain glory

USSR or China was socialist? I am pretty sure state control is not equivalent to worker's control, so it cannot, by definition, be socialism. If it was socialist, then the workers would be able to operate independently of the state. Setting up camps for political prisoners (read: disenfranchised workers) does not sound like socialist policies to me.
At glacial paces, sure, but you just said that it has to be state capitalist. Seems to me that the greatest civilizations during the twentieth century all seemed to revolve around state capitalism. Everything else seems to have come in second, in terms of innovation and invention. It's just a race for second place if it's all state capitalism, because all the superpowers were apparently state capitalist.
Why isn't everything state capitalist if innovation and invention, technologically or otherwise, always hyper-accelerated in those nations?

That doesn't really speak in favor of the often cited eyeQueue studies, now does it?

Try harder, please.

...

Dude, you're arguing for fascism. You can't criticize the Soviets for being asshats then pretend that your ideological equivalent state didn't do the same fucking thing.

???
Why do brainlets always resort to guessing games of other people's ideologies online when they're losing? "Oh, this guy is said something about x, he must just be an anti-x". Very poor format…

Do you think most people care about glory? What is glory anyway? Why should I care about how 'renowned' (or however you want to define it) my 'nation' is?

Not surprising, their whole ideology is about slave morality and submission to authority, the typical fascist is ironically the perfect example of an "untermensch".

If you don't care about glory on some level you're not really alive.

Oh gee just what I always wanted

...

That doesn't even begin to answer the question. What is glory? And why should I care? What if I just want to enjoy my own life?

Kill yourself, you're already dead.

...

Go ahead. "enjoy" yourself whatever that means. Most people want more.

But the USSR wasn't socialist, they were state capitalist. The NEP Lenin brought forth that lasted for six years was literally state capitalism.
Socialism where? It has never been fully and properly implemented on a national level, only one-off instances that couldn't even last a year or were so irrelevant and weak that they were easily toppled. It's just an idea, not a reality in the world that can be observed or recorded.

...

Okay, then what the fuck are you arguing for?

The MLs call it socialism. what do I know?
Irrelevant. ML style socialism had gulags, that still doesn't dictate how other experiments will function.

What exactly do most people want more than just having a good life, hanging out with their friends and family, see places, learn new things, perhaps raise children, etc.?
Well except for those constantly craving attention perhaps, or the depressed, but that's more like a mental disorder rather than the norm.
Tell me fellow nazi-poster. Because I'm not seeing it.

Maybe a centrist? A-political?

Stop being so ableist.

This thread has degenerated fast.

There was nothing for it to degenerate too, it was shti from the beginning user.

Just sit back and watch it unfold

Hey, it's not my fault if your own ideology would concentration camp you because you're mentally deficient

If I was a blind rabbi eating pork, what difference would it make if I pointed some truth? Who cares what I am, I will still point out failures and be honest about them.
If you really care, I am fundamentally an anarchist.

They may call it as they please. Titular only.
That's not irrelevant. Discussing the fantasies of socialism is not irrelevant to the topic of alleged socialist implementations. It's quite relevant, actually.
They weren't socialist, Lenin literally described the NEP as state capitalism. And it was in practice, too.
Yes, and Aztec sacrifices weren't able to dictate the weather, but that doesn't mean other experiments won't. You are, quite literally, approaching this issue with the conclusion pre-determined. That is as unscientific/anti-intellectual as one can be. You should be saying "before the experiment is conducted, we will remain in a state of suspend judgement". I'm only pointing out the fact that they weren't socialism by their own admission and by the results of their own policies, and you're telling me 'well, it could work if it was done differently'. Okay, well until you can bring forward substantive evidence proving your hypothesis, I will remain in a state of suspended judgement. There's no reason to rally behind unproven ideologies.

As long as the economy operates with a profit motive, there is no incentive whatsoever to do business for the "good of the nation". Many things that could be established are not established because they aren't profitable.

Did the USSR stop existing after the NEP?
I'm pretty sure every Marxist-Leninist agrees that the NEP was state capitalism. When you argue with fascists, you better do so along lines of class collaborationism, not trying to pull off "not real socialism".

Nope, Stalin abolished it in 1928. Then, the statist centralized control really came to be. That's what makes it state capitalist. Which is why it seems to be a point in favour of state capitalism, as all 20th century (and 21st century) innovative superpowers were state capitalist.
That guy has presented literally no personal opinions of his along the lines of anything close to fascism, and he's the only one (besides you) that I'm discussing this issue with, so there's no 'fascists'. Just because I discuss things and we disagree doesn't make him a fascist. Playing guessing games with people's ideologies is an underhanded move that attempts to discredit their arguments, which is ironic considering the guy was saying the USSR was socialist, which isn't quite fascist.

Jesus, imagine this being the defining image of your ideology. Literally gassing people with the cognitive ability of 5-year-olds and ethnic/racial minorities just so that the people in your arbitrary group of "superior people" can pat themselves on the back just for being born.

Day Of The Wall when?

The collectivization wasn't a centralized effort at all. During it, Stalin would sometimes not even hear reports from outside of Moscow for three months. It's false to claim that Stalin and his circle just commanded the entire collectivization and industrialization. The Gosplan, 5000 people who interacted with the local Soviets and Trade Unions, drafted an economic plan. I also find it quite misleading to say that there was capitalism as the dominant mode of production during that period, as we can clearly see that the law of value didn't dictate production - heavy industry was favored, despite it being less profitable than light industry. Workers weren't moved from one plant to the other because it wasn't profitable etc. To say all this is just regular state capitalism is lazy.

Again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Both are evil, but class-based oppression and the execution of kulaks by seizing their grain just because they were middle class is no better if class cannot be chosen (like disabilities). You should read the scathing letters and calls the action Lenin authorized against the kulaks, just replace them with the disabled and it reads the same.

Kulaks deserved it

To be a proletarian is often without a choice. However, you can be arsed to give up some of the grain you stored when your fellow men are starving more. Property rights are a social construct, and to compare them with biological traits is quite silly.

Yeah, I'm gonna Hitler makes Stalin look like a playground bully.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_five-year_plan#Agricultural_collectivization
I disagree. It was a planned and deliberate intention of the state to act in the manner that they did.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a top-down, collectivized effort. Their intentions might not have been, but that's irrelevant to the actions that came from them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#All-out_drive.2C_winter_1929.E2.80.9330
All of this sounds like, and is observed now as, a top-down method. The collectivization wasn't exactly voluntary, it was spearheaded, first and foremost, by the state. It wasn't the ideals of the kulaks, that's for sure. It was the 'reacquisition' forces that seized the grain and livestock, a branch of the state.
Sounds like, at every turn, the peasants turned to the people who concocted the efforts: the state officials.
At one point, it was the war effort. That doesn't mean businesses didn't succeed, profits were still made. It was just the state's profits, the state's property. Hence, the statist capitalist mode of production. They weren't running at a deficit, otherwise the whole war effort and subsequent reconstruction would have been impossible (and the US war-funds as loans certainly weren't without profit).
What delineates the two?

Do you earn more than a coupe of tens of thousand dollars a year? Do you have clean, running water, a roof over your head, access to education, etc.? You are enjoying a standard of living that the global worker does not. Using your own logic, you are the kulak that the revolutionaries wish to lynch.

This would require me to produce food and own the machinery to do so, knuckle dragger

...

Yes, which is why using your own logic, oppression against that which individuals cannot choose, like class-based status, is immoral.
This doesn't make class any less involuntary. If I'm already a lower-class individual, giving my meal to some other guy doesn't make increase his class: he still cannot choose his class. I've only taken a meal and starved myself while he gets to eat for a day.
So you can choose your class because property rights are socially constructed?

You're getting your timelines mixed up. The "reacquisition" of property from the oppressive peasants is what led to the starvation after they, naturally, rebelled against the government efforts to take their grain/livestock. They rebelled by destroying their things, like a scorched earth. It's kind of like wanting to rape a woman. If she kills herself to save herself from misery and suffering, it's still your fault for initiating the rape to begin with.
Fairly certain that, as a result of the pants-on-head retarded policies of the state, many thousands of children often starved to death, too. Had they not acted to steal from the peasants they vowed to protect, then the scorched earth would never have had to be used as a last resort. If I came up to you and stole your computer or laptop you're using right now and you destroyed it before I was able to acquire it, I would be to blame for the destruction. If you are a rational agent, you wouldn't just destroy your computer: it is as a last resort.

What machinery, a bucket for the milk from the cow to fall into? The whole class war resorted to killing peasants who didn't want to fess up to grain they'd hidden.
They were regarded as an "upper class" when the actual upper class fled the nation. You are in the same status as they are: the actual global worker views you as the same. Do you rent or own your apartment? Have you/your family ever owned property? Do you own a car, or have you payed it off? Again, the global worker views you as the privileged upper-class, the same way as the kulaks were viewed. They can justify a class war against you because, often, the gap between the middle class in the US and the global worker is as great as the gap between the US middle class and the billionaires. On average, small business owners make up a massive amount of the US economy, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were one yourself. I think it's a few trillion dollars of the total GDP, so they aren't inconsequential.

So what? You are an idealist to think that Stalin didn't have the support of the masses to pull this off.
It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. My point was that it wasn't controlled by a small kabal of state planners, and even quoting Wikipedia doesn't disprove that. Recommended reading:
redstarpublishers.org/ManPlanSoviet.doc
I already told you that the economic planning was coordinated with the trade unions and the Soviets.
No shit it wasn't voluntary. Do you think local landowners would just voluntarily give up their property?
The state was seized by the vanguard of the proletariat. All of this doesn't prove the existence of capitalism, just because there was a state doesn't mean it's capitalist. For capitalism to exist you need to prove that individual producers exchanged for profit.
Where? Profits didn't exist. There was merely the allocation of surplus of labor.
You don't need to have a profit to expand production, only under capitalism this is the case.

ownership of complex mechanical machinery was one of the requirements for being considered a Kulak.

Kulaks aren't all peasants.

That would I imply I 1. Use hired labor 2. Own complex machinery 3. systematically rent out agricultural equipment or facilities
4. involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
None of which I'm able to do. Quit talking out of your ass.

I really don't care about petite porky, no.

YES. You are finally getting it. If I'm forcing my boss at gunpoint to hand over his profits I am taking control of the system. A disabled person can not force doctors to get him out of the wheelchair at gunpoint.

I'm sure the state bureaucrats loved him. It was control of the military forces of the state that only mattered. The peasants who had their property stolen or were tossed in political prisons sure did love his policies, I'm sure their altruism still remains when they are the ones who suffer.
It was a dictatorship of the state, not of the people. The people were subservient to the state's authority, not the other way around. The Central Committee and other branches were the ones who dictated policies. The 'people' didn't decide to invade Czechoslovakia.
Which the state had the final say. To act as if the state was secondary to decision-making and that their authority was inconsequential is revisionism.
A point in my favour. The working class peasantry or small business owners were not the decision-makers when they were on the receiving end of the state policy for 'reacquisition'.
State bureaucrats were not proletariats. They epitomized unearned income.
Again with this monolithic 'capitalism'. Because, say, Keynesians favour intervention doesn't mean that this conditional existence of capitalism is the actual definition. State ownership is not private ownership, it's state ownership. Private ownership is when the kulaks can own their business enterprises. It just so happens that states can be capitalist, but extending the partially true to the entirety of the definition is inaccurate and discounts private ownership altogether. Also, the bureaucrats in charge of certain endeavours were lavishly rich, Beria himself rode around in a fucking Packard limousine from Detroit, that's what I call irony.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalstroy
Lol, then the USSR didn't exist. Profits were allocated by the state, that's how they fuelled their whole operation. All the loans from the war, the billions spent to reconstruct the nation after the war, were all derived from the same taxes the US government got from trades, pensions, sales taxes, etc. It all included profits.
You won't be able to do it for long. The USSR was not running on a deficit, or off of no net gain. The banking for household deposits had "positive, but low interest rates" (faculty.vassar.edu/kennett/Lieberman.htm). Interest rates for what, going to whom? The state was the final arbiter.

Until they targeted the peasants, right? Complex machinery? How rich do you think these people were, there were kulaks who were targeted for having a slightly higher standard of living and employing a handful of people. The complex machineries were plows and buckets for those kulaks who were persecuted as if they were industry owners.
But the peasants who were lumped in with the kulak class war sure were peasants.
This was nipped out of the bud when the focus shifted to the peasants.
They weren't industrial bankers or something. At one point, they were literally targeting peasants.
You mean have people till their land? Have you ever paid for a service to be done in your favour? If you live in the US, you have probably partaken in a service you have paid for.
Kulaks did not do this on such a scale so as to justify the loosening of the definition to include literally anyone who has land to farm or a couple more heads of cattle. It was the peasants who were the primary victims.
Small business owners are porky now? Haha, how the hell do you intend on creating any jobs AND having a stateless society, then? A hierarchy or some top-down system will form the minute somebody decides to create their own enterprise, this is inevitable unless you have central authority to stop them, like the Soviets did.

So if you admit to class being a voluntary choice, like you admitted when I asked you if you could choose your class, then upwards economic mobility isn't an issue if it's a matter of choice, right?

Says the left wing nazi.

Kulaks are peasants, you dense fuck

They were machines with mechanical motors.
You could at least look into the Soviet policy on this before talking out your ass again.

This was the stance of the Soviet government till the end

I never said they were. Pay attention.

Did a google search of this and it just led me to a bunch of wiki articles that said [citation needed]

No, rent out agricultural equipment. It's exactly what it says.

Yeah, Kulaks.

Oh, boy. Do I really need to walk you through what communism is? You realize how the relations production would shift if we got our way, right?

...

My name is Naziposter, therefore I am an authentic Naziposter.

OP this sounds nice because it’s boiled down and dressed up.
It paints communism as authoritarian. It then It goes on to say this about fascism:
As a couple of examples. That sounds rather authoritarian as well. In reality communists and fascist are pretty damn similar, but we’re we differ is we believe the post revolutionary state needs to be composed of the working class, and that capitalism must be abolished. The author of that needs to read a book. Obviously fascism is not capitalism, it fascism most certain maintains private property, thus it fosters capitalism. This is libertarians shreaking “ not real capitalism!” But the reality is it’s just another flavor of it. It will result in nothing but disparity and classes. Nobody will be equal in your society, and as a result conflicts between classes will arise as interests will be misaligned

keke fascism is not an economic system. Fascism is not a system of any kind. Fascism is what happens when there is a huge surplus of butthurt loser ww1 veterans who can't get jobs and wan't a strong authoritarian legionaire state based on revanchism nationalism and public welfare. You cannot replecate 20th Century fascism because it's impossible to have so many butthurt people after a world war and economic depression again. Modern Fascists are weird postmodernist faggots who don't know what they even want except they don't like jews and muh kali yuga and muh blackpill and muh soul.

No, I don't mean the arbitrary "he has more land than us, look he uses a mill, get him", I mean the political dissenters who didn't want to buy into the seizure of grain meme.
Yes, if you own a mill, make shit with it, and sell it, you deserve to be executed because you have a little more than what's average for the other peasants.
The same link you reference from wikipedia also includes the following.
The branches of the state were literally given the discretion to mould the definition at their leisure. Wonder why you didn't include that…
Yes, peasants of lower and lower 'worth' were targeted. First, it was the guy who had a modicum of wealth, then the guy after him, and so on. The problem is, when you kill the 'upper class', you don't kill the definition, you just shift it to the next class.
Then there's no need to punish them as if they were.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Peasant_resistance
There were also those "wealthy" enough to afford spare hands to be paid to work on their land, I'm sure. That is effectively what is being done when you are loaning out a mill or something.
Seems like idealism that redefines the wealthy to attack small businesses while thinking it can also have a stateless society. Only existing on paper, of course. Unless you can point me to some national-level instance of Communism where there was no state and private enterprises, like 'small business porkies' just stopped associating freely with their enterprises as they pleased. You will always need a dictatorship to kill the private owners who do that because then it wouldn't be communist.

Are you going to make an argument? Your claim is that the USSR was a one-man-show of Stalin not supported by the masses which is ridiculous in itself. Reformism can't bring about socialism, my dude. The anarchists in Catalonia did the exact same thing. Read John Scott's Behind the Urals, you can clearly identify the pioneer spirit of the masses under Stalin.
I'm going to need proof for that. The entire 1936 constitution was drafted by asking the people how they'd like things to be set-up.
That has nothing to do with Stalin.
I didn't claim any of that. I said that the economic planning was a democratic process.
They weren't. The proletariat was, to construct a socialist society. The collectivization and industrialization was in the interest of the proletariat.
Define bureaucrat. Bureaucracy wasn't rampant under Stalin, it only degenerated once the profit motive was reintroduced under the Kosgyn Reforms. Also, what is "unearned" income for you? You need administration. Being a a manager is a valid job. Except in socialism the manager must work in the interests of the workers, because the state is seized by the proletariat. You fuck over workers, you get the wall. This happened all the time during socialist construction.
In a social democracy you still produce for profit and labor is a commodity, is it not? Both didn't happen in the USSR.
That's not true. State enterprises can easily be private property. It's private property when there is an individual producers allocating surplus value in a market. A worker co-op under capitalism is private property. That's how Marx defined it. What is your definition?
Stalin died in 20 year old shies. To compare a more expensive car for a state offical (who didn't own it) with a the private fortunes of western capitalist is ridiculous. Please be exact: Was there private property? Was there surplus value extraction? Clearly, there wasn't.
There weren't profits. Show me were they existed before you make other claims.
With no income and sales tax, this seems hardly be possible. Read more about political economy under socialism:
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/
Then Marx was wrong an AnCaps are right, capitalism has always existed. How do you think people expanded production before capitalism?
What household deposits are you talking about? You realize your article talks mostly about the late 80s, right? The Gosbank didn't operate according to a profit motive.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosbank

Where?

You feel the need to mention counter-points, so you answer your own question.
Those that came under the spectre, those who were disallowed emigration, those who were kept behind walls in forced labour camps, all the peasants who had their shit stolen or 'reacquired' by the state's branches: they were not fans of the state. Stalin was the effective dictator, when you disallow all other political parties and toss political dissidents in prison or legislate 'counter-revolutionary' acts to justify the prisons, that is not a system wherein the people operate first and the state follows.
Of their totalitarianism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Describes it accurately. Pretty sure non-totalitarian states don't have a purge of their offices to get rid of the disloyal, or have their chief of secret police, like Beria, allegedly leap to the sky when they hear the news of the dead 'benevolent leader'.
Yeah, and the second amendment is supposed to allow for many things, too. Doesn't mean it must be respected.
Does with the USSR. I don't care about Stalin, even Khrushchev was much more moderate leader than Stalin was. But these kinds of 'leaders' don't escalate nuclear war, like Khrushchev, or write legislation justifying class warfare, like Lenin did with his Hanging Order.
Yes, because it's quite obvious they were a centralized state. Expanded upon in the following book: books.google.ca/books/about/The_Stalin_Cult.html?id=A3d5OBM9pVAC&redir_esc=y.
There is nothing democratic about annihilating an entire class of your population.
Not the peasants who suffered. When you are forced to destroy your livelihood, that isn't "in your interest". What's in your interest is not having a state entity try and kill you for having an acre more than is allowed.

You need to break a few eggs to make an omlette. It's not like the USSR was in a constant siege situation or whatever. Also, I disapprove of thus liberal lingo about labor camps. They were prisons with penal labor. Just because you add the word the scary word "camp" doesn't make it worse than every other fucking prison in the world.

"an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs."
None of this draws away from the fact that state bureaucrats are not proletariats. They were the decision-makers, there is nothing democratic about disallowing an entire class of people from participating in affairs because you're too busy annihilating them. That's anti-democratic.
I don't believe in it.
You just justified managerial positions in small businesses.
They effectively do. If I offer you a better wage than your current boss, you come and work for me instead.
The state bureaucrats had the final say, the people, like the peasants, were busy being hunted for being counter-revolutionaries by Beria or Kaganovitch.
Labour is energy being exerted, it is incorporeal. You cannot own the calories you exert to work. What is the result can be yours if you are independent.
The fruits of production for profit certainly was graciously accepted by the USSR at the end of the war. The gold mine I cited you, the leaders did not operate on a deficit at all. The state simply acquired the wealth.
A state is not private. If I don't own my small business, but the state does, then I am not the owner. Private owners directly delineates between state owners.
You know there is more than one way to differentiate and categorize literally any human individual, right? That's the whole point. You can have senators subsidizing industries or factories, or you can have private owners operating their own enterprises without state intervention to subsidize their competition. There is a clear difference between these two events.
Depends, if the lease is collectively owned, or there are many co-signers who sit on the board, then it can be privately owned. If the state acquires it from the business owners, then it is owned by the state. Like eminent domain.
Marx is dead and he has not lived to see the last century and a couple of decades. Relying on his arguments without any elaboration as gospel is ill-advised.
feskov.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Economics-MIT-Dictionary.pdf
Page 63. Screenshot included. Literally states that there is a clear difference between schools of thought concerning state intervention. I am saying that your reductionist, sweeping generalization of the absence of states meaning that it couldn't possibly be non-capitalist is erroneous by the literary definition.
Does not mean he was not wealthy. time.com/money/3977798/the-10-richest-people-of-all-time/
The link includes him as the official leader of the USSR who determined the flow. In effect, much like the Pope who is the undisputed 'ruler', except he doesn't execute political opposition.
Pretty sure it was the state's who bequeathed it to him for his use.

The state owned the property, private businesses were disallowed, hence the statist capitalism. The profits did exist for the state, the enterprises which benefited, the banks that had interest rates (state-owned), the loans that were paid back to the US (with interest, which comes from… profit) were all possible because they weren't operating on a deficit. They had fluctuating debt-to-GDP ratios (with years of growth and eventual decay), so what you claim is an impossibility.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
Just because the state disallows the trade doesn't mean it doesn't occur.
Talking about the USSR graciously accepting the loan from the US, which it gained from profit-based taxation. I literally said "US government", improve your reading comprehension.
Strawman.
Barter, a quid pro quo has always existed. People didn't do things that didn't involve a mutually beneficial exchange unless it was forced. Market-based free trade is the obvious termination.
Still part of the USSR.

He literally asked them to multiple times, and half of his disciples were big players against the city in the war

Actually I was hoping for a quote.

I don't.

Not democratic, that is totalitarian. Disallowing political parties to run against you is not democratic, nor is establishing your economic platform as 'the only way'.
They were forced labour camps. People did not, in general (unless they were ill), voluntarily enter into the camps. So they were forced labour camps.
Lol, because that's the definition of a camp. "a place with temporary accommodations of huts, tents, or other structures, typically used by soldiers, refugees, prisoners, or travelers"
Appealing to the authority of a source as evidence of its invalidity is not an honest counter-point to my reference.
That is your opinion, doesn't make the Stalinist system any less totalitarian.
Tu quoque, I don't care what they are. We are talking about the Stalinist regime, that's the one you keep deflecting to when I mentioned events under Khrushchev. Now we can deviate to anybody you want to? Hypocritical.
See above.
Founding fathers. Tried to limit state intervention to a degree they thought was reasonable. Any Soviet constitutional act that talks about democracy or equal rights under the law is pointless given the purges or suppression of political dissidents (ironically, this is coming from the revolutionaries).
Still the USSR. Stalin sure didn't appreciate his anti-profit morals if he accepted a dime from the Americans, then. All those billions still count.
Stalin was the cult of personality, Stalinism as a term literally originated because Kaganovitch was too busy fellating him and said "Long live Stalinism".
When you use centralized authority and state branches to kill a class of people, yes that is against the masses of peasants. No contradiction pointing out that he had a cult of personality, I never asserted that the cult was within the peasantry. That's a misrepresentation of what I said. It was in regards to the political hacks tolerating his authoritarian purges and secret police killings.
Democracy involves the population, you don't get to knick out a class of people like peasants because you are ideologically motivated to do so. If you cannot choose your class, much like you cannot choose your disabilities you are born with, then that is the same as discriminating against a group of people on the basis of a factor they cannot choose to control. It is anti-democracy.
At the cost of the state playing nanny to decide who has what? What a fair tradeoff, I'm sure they loved being sent to forced labour camps, or worse.
So class-based oppression is okay, but any other kind of oppression is just plain immoral?

Btw, watch me 'refute' your Youtube link with your own logic.

Forgot pic.

Just because they happen to hate each other doesn't make their economic bases not similar or the same. Under that logic, one could very well retain the exact same economic foundations to their opposition yet by mere merit of their opposition suddenly be made to have none of their economic foundations. Capitalists hate capitalists all the time. Hell, communists hate other communists all the time.

Sure, if your mill has a mechanical motor that allows you to produce a surplus that a committee of the poor deem unwarranted

I didn't use a link from wikipedia. There's some stuff about it here and here.
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch11.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/01/21.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/feb/14b.htm

Googling that, it looks like it comes from Robert Conquest, which doesn't surprise me much. Either way you look at it, local governments =/= the stance of the soviet as a whole. Also, the fact they could add criteria, doesn't mean they necessarily did, generally speaking. This is still a far cry from a Nazi declaration from on high about the mentally ill, and reeks of grasping at straws.

Again, this implies every peasant was a kulak. The main criteria still stands.

Yeah, and they probably took their surplus labor.
Cry me a river.

I wouldn't punish them as if they were, I would punish them as if they were kulaks.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Peasant_resistance
yeah, it still says citation needed right next to it.

It's not about "wealth", though. The relations of production would be drastically different so your small business owner/capitalist would no longer exist.

What do you think a small business owner is?
It sounds like you have the 🍔burger🍔 notion that a small business owner is just a regular crafts or tradesmen.

That's already happened without a dictatorship, so I fail to see your point.

Democracy and totalitarianism aren't mutually exclusive, you alienated liberal. What if the mass of people democratically decides to rape your sister?
Liberal multi-party democracy is not the only form of democracy. Let me explain to you the difference between liberal democracy and proletarian democracy: In a liberal democracy, the right to own private property is constitutionally enshrined - therefore, it is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, because only the bourgeoisie holds private property while parties which want to abolish that are deemed unconstitutional and are outlawed:
germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3097
In a proletarian democracy, capitalists on the other hand are not allowed to run - only worker organisations, such as trade unions, cooperatives, women's league etc. were alloweed to nominate candidates for Soviets.
That explains the building, not the function. Camp in the way you use it implies a function, like a dystopian forced labor camp. I don't fall for rethorical tricks, sorry. You have criticisms of the Soviet prison system, which was more progressive than anywhere in the world, feel free to elaborate.
It's just not how you argue honestly. You made a random claim, didn't provide an argument, and then posted the most general Wiki article.
The reason I bring this up is because every moral argument needs a point of reference to be valid. Totalitarianism looses its meaning when everything is totalitarian. Some terms require a dichotomy, if the latter doesn't exist, the term looses its descriptive character.
They weren't the people. Franklin said himself that it is the goal of this constitution to protect the bourgeois elite from the masses. The American Revolution and the French Revolution were bourgois revolutions, establishing capitalism over feudalism.
I don't believe in morals, but yeah. This is correct. Capitalists will be surpressed.

The YouTube link has actual witness accounts. You seem to completely ignore what kind of a shithole Russia was before the Bolsheviks took power.

Don't bother with these threads, people. l Every time, OP is either a. A moron or b. astroturfing. Either way, Holla Forumsyps are never interested in good faith debate.

t. brainlet
Delving deep into the late revisionist era where black markets were pretty much left alone doesn't support your argument.
So because the USSR took loans in a war based on the value created by American tax payers doesn't make it socialist? Ahahahaha

>killed for being a peasant
*Kulak
ftfy

That is, if the definition isn't further redefined.
I can use your own narrative of source dismissal because the source's faults are evidence of the inaccuracy to your own argument, which is what I will do now.
Same as above. Source dismissal on these grounds is anti-intellectual.
Redefined at will, which also includes literally anyone any peasant "who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak."
Well, we're talking about immorality and emotional judgement, so it's only fair to extend this standard to the crimes against humanity the USSR committed, too.
Justifying class-based oppression is immoral, which is why people regard the Stalinist regime unfavourably if they were victims of it.
Pic related. Selective memory, I guess.
Yeah, if you want to punish them as you want to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business

Of course he did (and he was right). He didn't believe all wealth comes from labour.

Oh yeah, my bad. Has been a while since I've read Critique of the Gotha Program.

When you utilize totalitarianism to eliminate a class from the democratic process, you are not democratic in your system. Second time I made this point, still goes over your head.
A more apt analogy would be: What if the state killed all the peasants, then democratically (with the state officials left after the purges) decides to rape your sister?
Strawman.
Not a democracy. Power in the hands of the eligible members of the nation, not power to the eligible members but not a proportion of the peasants who own mills or sell things.
In the context, it is a political prisoner, and they were forced labour camps.
Gulag: Main Camps' Administration or Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag"
The wiki on Stalinism contains all the points I made, with little numbers that take you to the source, that I made in the first few paragraphs. You've read more than that with my posts right now. At this point, it's on you for not accepting the article's information because of your ideological biases. I can't help you there if you want to be irrational.
You said: If you break it down to its core capitalist states are just as totalitarian
I do not care what the capitalists did, they can both be evil. We are talking about the immoral actions of the Soviets. You are using this as a "well, look at the capitalists, they are JUST AS___". This is the definitional example of a tu quoque.
Yes. I don't care about the US, they can be a military dictatorship for all I care.
Yes, Marx's Nostradamus predictions are like the age-old guessing game: even a blind squirrel will find a nut eventually.
I'm using your own logic against you to dismiss sources I think are ___.

Ad hominem.
Still during the reign of the USSR. I began this by criticizing the USSR, not one specific era opting to ignore all other contradictory evidence.
Taxes gained by profit-based motivations the workers or brokers engaged in. Taxes gained by the enemy superpower, from a freer economy than the USSR. If they were principled, they would not have accepted it. Oh well.
They were not socialist because socialism does not persecute an entire class under the name of socialism. It can be genocidal, totalitarian socialism in that case.
Goods being exchanged and the subjective worth of what is traded is considered a profit for what was exchanged by both parties if it is a voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.
Small businesses now exist and the work the owners do is now a 'valid job'.
Labour is incorporeal, it cannot be exchanged. Although, I guess there was a market for 'labour' in the sense that the state took slaves to work for their work projects, like the bastion of democracy and freedom they were. In that sense, they did profit off of the backs of those who didn't earn a cent. The 'corrective camps' weren't summer camps, after all.
Take note, this is always how successful nations operate, just take a look at the HDI or the GDP per capita of the USSR compared to other nations.
Incorporeal things are not commodities, by definition. The state of it being a commodity is usually followed by ownership, even though you do not always 'own' your time, especially when you sign off on it or work using somebody else's equipment.

Owning?

Which derive their value from the subjective worth the consumer places on them so that they would be willing to trade. Otherwise, they are not worth anything.
Neither, it was just an example of the differences of capitalism.
You just contradicted yourself. Either states are not private, which you agree with, or they "become private property". The state doesn't become 'private property', the state seizes private property, like in cases of eminent domain, or by using taxes that are taking funds from private businesses. If the state gets to take your money you earn, you don't really own the percentage you have to pay in taxes, the state does. You might as well write "state" on, say, 15% of the bills you receive that amount to your paycheck.
Mine is updated, and is more accepted as a literary definition. Marx is not an encyclopedia.
It isn't a legal right "subscribed" to A firm, it is a legal right "subscribed" to THE firms. They (the state) own them when they can seize them, like during asset forfeiture.

I'm going off of his own admission here:
If managerial work is valid, then it's expected that business owners will have to have some sort of position like that, which they do as we have observed in the past/today. It has been subdivided, or centralized, but it has always existed.

tbh I'm not really paying attention to this thread, but as an aside this is what is known as immanent critique

Something Marx deployed quite effectively sometimes

Marx may do as he pleases, but he cannot anymore. He is dead. I find it interesting how often he is cited as an authority, even after the advent of the Information Era. The cardinal sin of historical examination and analysis/comparison is to conflate historical circumstances with one another, yet Marx's work is interchangeably cited in the 21st century all the time.
Still, if one may dismiss an article or a link and call to the question the source as evidence of said dismissal, I may extend the criteria of the article/link to literally anything else I want to. That's just what I did.

Even your own source says they added criteria, not redefined it.

Never dismissed it, though.

You're going to need a new citation for that.

Speak for yourself. I'm talking about surplus value being taken, and it being in the interest of people to stop it.

Just what do you think a dictatorship of the proletariat will involve?

I didn't realize you were citing something new. You should be more forward about what arguments you're making. Either way, I'm not really concerned about the counter-revolt of kulaks.
Sure, why not

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business
Yeah, this is a pretty liberal definition. trades and craftsmen wouldn't be considered business men in the same sense. The relations of production is usually different for them.

OK, so quit being a liberal.

owner ≠ manager

I never said that they redefined capitalism, I said that they had differing views on interventionism. That is literally what I made reference to: the different schools of thought.

Not once did you actually respond to it. Not even once. I am still waiting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
I am sure there is a name for this kind of illogical behaviour. Again, you are endlessly deflecting to irrational dismissals without actually examining the evidence put forth. If it's such a shit source and obviously wrong, prove it wrong beyond "I don't like it".
Talking about this:

A lot of dead people.
I linked you to the article with the category selected, and I didn't only cite that one part, that was the one I picked out of the greater portion that I cited earlier.
Because eventually the peasants will revolt against you just as you did to your oppressors. You're just filling in their shoes when you wage a holy jihad against a class of people.
Okay, this does not make it wrong.

No, I am not a 'liberal', my political affiliation has nothing to do with it. It's because I am a low wage earner and I don't want to promote a tyrannical regime with a crazy dictator who purges his government out of paranoia, holds mock trials with no due process, persecutes classes of people stealing their livelihoods, and suppresses freedom of the press.

Managers that are also owners. In small business scenarios, this is, more often than not, the circumstance. That's what I'm talking about, not huge business tycoons.

They say communists know more about fascism than actual fascists do.

i.e. complete bullshit

The damn commies can't even agree on what commodity and value mean.

My dude, you are clearly not arguing in good faith and that is why it is tedious to respond to you. You make all these claims Robert Conquest made, and then you link me to the Wikipedia article on Stalinism. I've actually have read literature supporting a different narrative, such as http%3A%2F%2Fwww.garethjones.org%2Ftottlefraud.pdf. Here, go debunk this book. You don't want to? SOURCE DISMISSAL! Kill yourself. I'm not going to debunk an entire Wikipedia article on a Mongolian throat singing board because you can't be arsed to formulate your own argument.
I'm not the one moralizing all the time, you idiot. I was stating that a term looses it's descrptive character if it fails to describe a phenomenon seperate from others.
Marx was critical of "cook-shops of the future".

When they were fighting for their own survival?
My fucking god. I didn't say that a manager position is not necessarily a bad thing underr socialism when he is accountable to the workers while managers under capitalism are clearly something different. You completely cut off the rest of the sentence.
What's happening under capitalism then?

You aren't making very smart arguments and honestly I have better things to do with my time, mostly because you are arguing in bad faith.

links is broken
google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHiumJmKrXAhWEVhoKHSBkB24QFgg0MAA&url=http://www.garethjones.org/tottlefraud.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3p9wf52U8i_oLpXSgULwxk

>>>/reddit/

That guy I was arguing with was clearly from Holla Forums.

I dismissed it because you weren't making a point with it. Everybody can post Wiki articles about random things. You either want to have a honest debate or a shitfest, like you performed here.

I have only been using your own logic to respond to you, so when you dismiss the wiki as "that fucking wiki article", I will do the same with your links. If you want to be intellectually bankrupt, I am going to extend the same courtesy to you. What obligation do I have to argue honestly with somebody who doesn't want to be logical?
You make all these claims genocidal Stalin apologists made, and then you link me to the Marxist article on Stalinism.
See? Easy stuff.
Whataboutism isn't really a good point to make when you still refuse to even address anything to do with the wiki article about Stalinism. Go ahead, debunk a random book I will choose, too.
Ironic that you accuse me of bad faith when you are the first to call for my death because of your emotional tantrum.
Attacking the forum for being dishonest in your approach to the wiki article on Stalinism, sad days.
He can be critical of many things, ignoring the evidence pointing to the contradictions of his clairvoyance doesn't make him a good authority on 'guesstimations'.
So that's the limit they had to embracing capitalist mode of production the enemy provided, got it.
Because it is an ought-is fallacy.
Mutually beneficial trades occurring within a hypothetically free market, although that is defined and interpreted differently depending on the school of thought. If I value your pen more than my dollar, and you value my dollar more than your pen, ideally we could trade without any interference.
What a convenient excuse to dip out while STILL not even attempting to formulate a response to the claims of totalitarianism and tyranny of Stalin.

The thing is, dude, that we have heard these arguments over and over and over, have gone over the accounts, etc. - it becomes tedious and this is why you get people dismissing the source when you go arround quoting Robert Conquest. We aren't here to spoonfeed you about stuff that you easily find here: reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk

See:
Of their totalitarianism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Describes it accurately. Pretty sure non-totalitarian states don't have a purge of their offices to get rid of the disloyal, or have their chief of secret police, like Beria, allegedly leap to the sky when they hear the news of the dead 'benevolent leader'.
You know they have an edit policy and policies about sources?
Pot calling the kettle black. You were the one who resorted to faulty logic like ad homs or dismissal of sources based on illogical grounds.

>it becomes tedious and this is why you get people dismissing the source when you go arround quoting Robert Conquest. We aren't here to spoonfeed you about stuff that you easily find here: reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk
I just looked over the link, nowhere does it deal with the book "Harvest of Sorrow", which is where the assertion came from, or the specific argument raised within the claim made by the book. It's just a huge, dare I say it, "general" post (the same big general post you criticized me for on the Wikipedia).

Also, let me just point out a glaring elephant in the room: you dismiss wikipeida because anybody can edit it while citing reddit. Let that sink in for a moment.

The argument once again, which you just said "oops, that's a source I ignore so haha"
In May 1929, the Sovnarkom issued a decree that formalised the notion of "kulak household" (кулацкое хозяйство). Any of the following defined a kulak:[3][12]

use of hired labor
ownership of a mill, a creamery (маслобойня, butter-making rig), other processing equipment, or a complex machine with a mechanical motor
systematic renting out of agricultural equipment or facilities
involvement in trade, money-lending, commercial brokerage, or "other sources of non-labor income".
By the last item, any peasant who sold his surplus goods on the market could be automatically classified as a kulak. In 1930 this list was extended to include those who were renting industrial plants, e.g., sawmills, or who rented land to other farmers. At the same time, the ispolkoms (executive committees of local Soviets) of republics, oblasts, and krais were given rights to add other criteria for defining kulaks, depending on local conditions.[3]

T H I S

It also intuitively makes sense that "involvement in trade" is vague as fuck and can be defined whenever there is ANY involvement in trade, which would classify a "kulak", hence the lax definition and long victim list.

I never said they redefined capitalism. Maybe go back and read?
Also, this isn't me

I've responded to everything you've said, and you just keep babbling without end.

Also not me

So the same thing under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Yeah, I saw the category selected, but I thought that was a mistake. I don't get why I was supposed to care about a kulak counter revolt.
A kulak counter revolt would be the least of my worries.

How am I filling in their shoes if the class itself is dissolved? Farming collectives would be what would replace that structure.

It's a definition difference. It's right if you're a liberal, but it's useless when understanding the socialist perspective of what constitutes a small capitalist business.

I'm not going to write an essay here about the Wiki article on Stalinism, and you are not going to debunk this book. So are we even now and can debate like adults?
You don't even know what Marx predicted.
Retard.
No, it fucking isn't. A small business manager under capitalism =/= a manager of a cooperative in socialism. You originally went "got ya!" on small businesses as you pretended I just justified managerial positions under capitalism. Clearly I didn't. Clearly you argue in bad faith, Holla Forums.
There is a difference between a use-value and an exchange-value.

(the same big general post you criticized me for on the Wikipedia)
I wouldn't have posted it if not for your demand for spoonfeeding.
It links to different sources, retard. It's not an article.

So "pure ideology". Gotcha.

Don't be a tanky, then.

class collaboration doesn't solves capitalist antagonism, the incestuous relation between corporations and the state would only breed corruption.

Here:
If that is you, then you are pushing a strawman on me, as I never said that they redefined it, but you are accusing me of promoting this even though I said that there were different interpretations by different schools of thought.
Quality>quantity, you never actually responded to the Conquest citation (which wasn't the only one but who cares right) or the article on Stalinism.
Sure, I don't care about them. More whataboutism, okay.
Speaks to the persecution of the class-based policies.
Well, Communism has failed to fulfil its own principles, so I don't think you will have much to fear because you will never be a commissar.
If you read the Stalinism article, you would understand that it was a hierarchy, from the top-down.
No, it is still an accurate literary definition. Your interpretation of its politics is irrelevant.

...

I'm not saying you redefined capitalism or whatever. I was referring to this.
see:

It doesn't matter. As an owner, his revenue doesn't come from any job of his.

All you need to show is why the adjectives are inaccurate. You cannot because it is a commonly accepted truth based on observation, not your lens of ideological bias.
You brought up a random book because you are incapable of actually addressing the main arguments made within the article. I cited "the books" before your 'well, what about…'.
A guessing game of our literary knowledge, now. From ideology to literary history.
Pot, meet kettle.
All subjective, determined by the individuals. People value things differently, I may value something more based on my desires or needs. It is the utility I derive from the trade, or sometimes the pleasure, or sometimes just for no reason at all, that the trade occurs (if the other party is also willing).
You cited a random reddit article that doesn't even address the Conquest citation, and it was in response to something that is intuitively obvious from the available information and wasn't only cited by Conquest, you just saw his name and dismissed it fallaciously.
That still makes it an article, by definition. It was included within the entirety of the subreddit's history.

You have been the one fallaciously appealing to my motivation, not me. Try harder if you want to complain about honesty.
You're getting your narratives mixed up.
Aaaand you just admitted to the validity of the Stalinist article the wiki was talking about because everything I just asserted is contained within the article, so by admitting to this truth as something 'tankies' do, you are admitting that the article was accurate in its description.

Be more clear, we've got your absolutist definition that could not possibly be deviated from in regards to who isn't a kulak, and another conveniently-open definition about capitalism to always include all degrees of state intervention equally.
No, the wiki does not even deal with the citation/the argument raised within (also Conquest isn't the only guy cited there).
It was literally the first paragraph or so, last I checked. The parts about tyranny, absence of a free press, policies around class-based persecution, and so on.
Here's the exact arguments.

Kind of is. Dictatorships of the "people", like your propagandized view of Stalin's paradise, included many millions of dead people or enslaved people.
Your whole point was to ask a rhetorical question, for me to make your argument for you as to what a dictatorship of the people would necessarily look like. Burden of proof is on you if you believe they are to be observed one way and not another.

Include the full quote I responded to for the context.
"I don't get why I was supposed to care about a kulak counter revolt. "
To which I said "Speaks to the persecution of the class-based policies."
I was speaking in the context of the kulak counter-revolts that were observed as a result of class-based oppression.
Not sure how to phrase it to you because you think that class-based oppression and its propaganda can be revivified even though they ran their course and expired in the twentieth century.
I agree, that sounds tyrannical.
Yeah, you're calling it "liberal", whatever that means in regards to the definition being invalidated somehow.
Can you find me a literary definition of this to validate these qualities about the two terms?
We haven't been talking about the definition of socialism, per se, we've been observing how it could not possibly have existed in the USSR's terms as a result of people like Stalin or Khrushchev and the actions taken against classes of people.

That's exactly where it comes from: his ownership of the business. If you own a car and rent it out to people, the money you get is as a direct result of your ownership and intent to lease the car out.

To show you the result of debating concepts like you, I will now cite a book and ask you to debunk it even though you were the first one to cite the book (improperly, without a proper citation, might I add) in response to my link I provided (to the article about Stalinism you are still either too scared to or just too intellectually dishonest to open and read to respond) here:
"I'm going to need proof for that
Of their totalitarianism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Describes it accurately. Pretty sure non-totalitarian states don't have a purge of their offices to get rid of the disloyal, or have their chief of secret police, like Beria, allegedly leap to the sky when they hear the news of the dead 'benevolent leader'. "
Your response here:
"If you think that the fucking Wiki article about Stalinism describes it pretty accurately, you are beyond saving. If you continue to make no arguments and post another Wikipedia article I'm not going to reply."
I use the same logic against your sources, to no avail (because you still don't retract your irrational response above).
Then almost one hour and forty minutes of complete deflection or just straight-up denial of a source based on nothing but "I don't like it, you are beyond saving", you cite a random book completely unrelated to the definitions of Stalinism (instead you link to some random book dealing with the Ukrainian genocide).
And you have the gall to complain about dishonesty when you were the one who cast the first stone.
I can use your own logic at every turn to dismiss your sources based on my emotions until you recant your illogical dismissal of the wiki article to actually read it like an adult.

This, plus the only reason Fascists ended up being embraced by the conservative establishment back then was fear of a socialist revolution — which is virtually nonexistent today.

Can someone explain to me what 'aesthetics" are in this context? What do they mean by this?

Read Benjamin's short but insightful essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, it deals with the aestheticization of politics and its relationship with fascism.

This thing right? OK thanks

Nice to see the liberal ITT getting btfo

mmhmm

It was pretty clear I was referring to what you said about "redefining" kulaks on a whim. I even quoted it. Not my fault your reading comp is bad.

yeah, that's kind of my point. It seems to keep going over your head or something. I'm just sitting here waiting for it to sink in.

What's your point? That if because it was Stalin and he was a dictator doing dictator things, purging the Kulaks is bad? It's one of the few things I agree with him on.

Who said I thought they were a paradise? The intended goals and whether they actually succeeded are two different things. You would have to get rid of the kulaks regardless.

It wasn't rhetorical, actually.
I want to know if you actually care about did people, which you actually don't. It's about what kind of dead people.

Didn't even cross my mind. You can have that argument with yourself, I guess.

Class has always been a part of politics, regardless if it's outside your scope of awareness. Even given the context, you sound silly.

It doesn't need to be revived when it never died.
I mean, if you want to see how socialist view private property, read almost anything by Marx outside the Manifesto. Grundrisse is a good start. Otherwise, if you can find a reason to doubt me when I tell you that private property of the small capitalist business owner is defined by his relations to production, be my guest. It's pretty common knowledge. For any liberal definition, you can pretty much just look at your wiki article again.

I know, I'm referring to how socialist define a small capitalist business, and you don't know what you're talking about where that's concerned.

*dead people

I never once talked about your motivations. Are you retarded? Do you want me to explain what "pure ideology" is to you? Because the point is that it functions regardless of what your motives are. It's a descriptor rather than a question of motives.
Yeah, you're beyond help.

That much is a truism by this point, seeing how the barrier for persecution was lowered. The final part of the definition is quite vague and extends to a great many deal of people. It is redefined at the leisure of those who have the authority to act as state officials.
I misspoke, I was referencing the reddit article you cited in response to the wiki article. I repeat myself properly above here:
When I am responding to your response to my wiki link, I would be talking about your response to my link, not my original link.
I clear myself up and repeat myself as I did in the post I linked above: the reddit debunking does not deal with the citation or the argument, nor does it deal with the definition of the kulak/how it was approached, it doesn't even reference the book (also Conquest wasn't the only guy cited in the wiki article on the definition of the kulak being deliberately lax).
No, the admission that it occurred. It makes you unelectable in the first world. All you have to do is admit this, which is why the last user was whining about revisionism of Marxism while revising history and the work of Stalin. But you admit to it, so it's fine. You agree with it, too.
We agree, then.
Then I am under no obligation/qualification based on evidence to answer what a dictatorship of that nature would look like. It has not been observed in the real world, it's just an idealistic interpretation or guess I would have.
My guess was dead people, that's usually how dictatorships turn out for political dissenters.
Sounding silly doesn't make it wrong, it makes it silly to you. Speaking about one instance of class based political oppression doesn't mean class only exists within a political sphere in that one instance.
Okay, then how much political power does the movement hold? How are you going to be the vanguard for the revolution? How close are you to the revolution, anyways? Pro-tip: you cannot answer any of these without looking like a LARPer because fringe, extremist groups who want to kill the middle class will literally never get anywhere mainstream in the English-speaking Western world.
I will remain in a state of suspended judgement until you answer my question. Just namedropping somebody isn't an actual citation from an encyclopedia or something academic. You said liberals see EVERYTHING as small capitalist business, while socialists do not. You need better evidence that 'just google it bro'.
Yes, your super literary definition you just brought up a few posts ago. Not concerned with the main arguments I started off with.

What would it matter if an ideology was pure or not. Why even mention ideology, can you not discuss things without resorting to meme responses? That's what your response was, it was literally "So "pure ideology". Gotcha."
Going off of that, you are not making any intellectual counter-point to my retort.
Listen, I'm not the one who won't/can't cite a definition beyond "well, just trust me, why doubt me, appeal to the status quo".