/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Tho I'm not saying that Nazi Germany had the exact same economic base as the SU. It was a society stuck in transition, but that was enough to bring about a similar superstructure.

>>480289
>No, it was not a worker state
It depends on your level of ideological purity. The Soviet Union was the worker state you were going to get while having to smash fascism and make up a century of industrial development in a decade.

>You could at least look up production figures.
>Mode of production is not defined by how many tanks you can build lol.
>Germany was already industrialized when the nazis took over,
I did investigate the economics and war production of fascist Germany. It was a disorganized shit show. The Nazis sold out the public sector via privatization, and that wrecked their economic efficiency. The only thing the Nazis were good at was propaganda. They inherited the industrial capacity of Germany and once that was used up, everything broke down.
>WTF do you want from them?
Nothing, the Nazis are dust. I want you to stop perpetuating the myth that the Nazis were competent.

>You think bolsheviks could've done better?
I know for a fact that the bolsheviks did better, the Soviet Union became an industrial super-power in both military and economic terms. They did that while they almost doubled the life span of their population. Every societal metric dramatically improved. They had a more difficult starting point too. Russia had less industrial development than Germany, they had to solve many bootstrapping problems while under constant attack. If the communists had prevailed in Germany and been able to start off with an industrial system as fully developed as the one in Germany, we'd be living under world communism right now.

The Nazis managed to take Germany which was a huge and very advanced industrial power and completely wreck it within less than 2 decades. You'd be hard pressed to find worse leadership, even if we ignored all the evil genocidal mass murdering Bullshit.

>SU also had low growth after initial industrialization for fuck's sake.
When growth slowed to 3% in the 80s, the soviets considered it unbearable stagnation. In capitalism 3% growth is a euphoric boom economy. You are correct that the Soviet economy did not perpetually maintain the initial growth rates between 10-20%. If you apply these standards of "low growth" to capitalism, than pretty much all of capitalism sucked.

>>480290
I don't understand why you would ever consider comparing the fascist regimes to the SU.

Looking at the material conditions of workers: In the Soviet system wages for workers rose, living conditions rocketed upwards, while in the Axis powers wages for workers fell and living conditions took a nose dive. The Soviets build a efficient dynamic public sector, while the Fascists just sold off the public sector to fund their imperialist war against half the world. I can't find any similarities.

From a hismat and flow of matter perspective these 2 systems did pretty much the opposite. I don't know where you're getting confused. Maybe avoid static comparisons, look at what the systems do, where matter and energy flows.

One could make the argument that fascism is a mechanism of Imperial mega capital, sacrificing entire countries for advancing their imperial designs. In that sense Fascism is national suicide.

>>480291
>Tho I'm not saying that Nazi Germany had the exact same economic base as the SU. It was a society stuck in transition, but that was enough to bring about a similar superstructure.
Political organization and power in the Soviet Union was rooted in the worker councils, which were called "Soviets". The Fascists had nothing like that. That's a pretty big difference.

>>480290
So I guess this is the gay thread where you all try to figure out what lines work on the fools now? It's over for you all. Ideology is for the slaves, and the people never really were "ideological", despite the efforts to shill for it. Ideology has always had a narrow appeal to the middle class. The proprietors don't give a shit about ideology except for what excuse they need to bullbait others into accepting property claims. The aristocracy laugh that they've been able to play this game for so long and enough of you assholes continue buying this ideology project that never really worked.

Ideology is a product of institutions which are presently failing - they're choking the world and doing incredible damage as they fail, and because they have made any alternative impossible, the institutions will continue to destroy the world and make us miserable. But, after all of the lies, most of humanity is done with the institutions. It's not a matter of "new institutions". Humanity is just done with the concept altogether, and if there are new institutions, they are local and stand oppose to the ruling institutions, which will continue to march in lockstep. Eugenics cannot fail - it can only be failed.

>>479368
This is full of a lot of weasel words to make an ideological veneer atop what Nazi Germany - and Germany as a project going back to the foundation of the German nation-state - always was. The Germans always were about smash and grab plunder scams, then insisting that everyone is supposed to respect some fake and gay "right of conquest" by insisting everyone else secretly wants to be Krauts. We are nothing like them and never will be, and they are always an epic fail. The Nazis are merely the most egregious and absolute example of a pure plunder and exploit economy, that cannibalized Germany itself as the Nazis got all of the money bags and all of the gold and pissed off to a giant diaspora, so they can shit up America and fully Germanize the place.

Nothing about the Nazis was especially "authoritarian" compared to the other states of the time. This talking point has always been something fascist ideologues use, to assert that any expression of strength is ipso facto fascist and that democracy is always impotent and gay. It's a giant cope to pretend that the Red Army didn't show these fucking Satanic retards what authority really looks like and beat the shit out of them, without the showy atrocities and posturing that Nazi always behave like squealing fags to create more of.

As for "ideological capitalism", I don't think you understand where that comes from. Capitalism is not an ideological tenet or something you get to choose to do because it feels good. Capital as a proposition refers to something very real and relevant to what humans do with technology and labor. The business interests in Germany did not need "Nazism" or particularly care what ideology ruled. If they could, they would reconcile with socialism of some form and think nothing of it, so long as their position above the masses is maintained. The primary enemy of the Nazis, stated repeatedly by them, was democracy more than "communism". Communism was despised because it was seen as democratic and foreign, and it was the democratic part that was foreign to the entire German project more than anything else. The charges of "democratic Judaism" were a way to conflate democracy with corruption, vice, and imperial intrigues, and the Bolsheviks were portrayed as liars and tools of the British in all of the Nazi agitprop during and after the war. The only way this is credible is if it is presumed "human nature is against sharing", not because communism was this bizarre unicorn but because Nazis hate the idea of poor people having anything whatsoever and love to see us suffer, because they're complete and unmitigated fags. No one at the time believed communism was an "ideology" - as far as the communists cared, they believed their approach was a perfectly viable way to build a country, which is exactly what the Communists in the Soviet Union advertised their goal as, rather than some idea that they existed to impose a fantastical world against "reality" as asserted by insidious influencers. There were many in the USSR that didn't believe "socialism" in the proper sense was anywhere near realization, and that all that Stalin did was make the Party into the leading capitalist and the entity which all business in Russia had to pass through. That's essentially what the USSR did, by its own admission. But, the USSR had an interest in elevating at least some of the people and a sense that this was a shared project, rather than the Nazi faggotry where everyone must be as Satanic as them.

>>479386
Capital proper referred not to simply wealth, but a concept of productivity in the abstract guided by human intelligence - that is, capital is technology. The technology of Antiquity is simple and never really considered "the point", and the idea that it was an imperative for "capital" to expand vertically, through an idea of inexorable technological and historical advance, was not a thing anyone in Antiquity believed. Roman technology changed very little over the centuries, and their concept of what economic wealth was changed not at all from the moment currency became standard. The one deviation is that the Dominate had to do away with money for a time because the money was no longer any good, and this was always an ad hoc measure.

What is confirmed is that estates had to engage in market activity and plan their affairs meticulously if they were to survive. Economic competition, economic interests, wealth, banks, finance, and the levers of finance, all existed in Antiquity much as they do now. The Empire was very conscious of trade and the flow of wealth, and landholders and nascent industries were aware of their bottom line. The formation of the "capitalist" as such never happened because such a creature would have been seen as highly disruptive to the imperial order and the interests that did hold the wealth, just as capitalists were seen as intruders when the asserted power in the 18th century, and just as capitalists were rejected in the old empires because the capitalist strategy was not freely reproducible. "Capitalism" as a fully worked out concept arises out of the trading companies who imposed it purely as a way to organize the British Empire, to take over the world by intrigues and dealing drugs. What is capitalism? It is opium, prostitution, and all of the vice of the East India Company and more. That's all it truly was spiritually - it is a drive to the bottom that makes capitalism "capitalism", and all technology and product we have made is in service to this demonic beast.

Now you might say "But Eugene, didn't capitalism build hitherto unknown wonders of the world?" I say - nuts to that. "Capitalism" as a way of thinking didn't build shit. It is always those who work and actually have to advance technology who build anything, and they do not build things because they actually believe the dollar signs are the point. Money is always a tool - this is what a proper understanding of money will always tell you. VALUE in an economic sense may be seen as a social relation, but when you actually look at what a "social relation" is, you see that the relevant relations are all subsumed in a concept of technology which is not a mere "fetish" or "symbol". The technology of the 19th century meant many things would be different moving forward. Sailboats were displaced with oil, battleships, and these overpriced weapons platforms. Technology almost always advanced as an anti-democratic force, with vast funding spent to build technology not out of a blind impulse, but with the explicit aim of suppressing technological advance once it served this purpose of enslaving the world. That is what is happening presently - the institutions of capitalism and what was called "socialism" are now choking the life out of humanity. Communism was in the main animated by a force of humanity saying they did not want to do that, but the communist parties adopted a political thought that was more in line with the middle class and aristocracy, and an imagined alliance of intelligence, science, and technology which excluded everyone else and locked up all of the property. That is now the only idea anyone "up there" believes in.

>>480307
>It is always those who work and actually have to advance technology who build anything, and they do not build things because they actually believe the dollar signs are the point. Money is always a tool - this is what a proper understanding of money will always tell you.
You are echoing Marx, who thought that there was going to be a power struggle between bank capital and industrial capital. Marx thought that industrial capital would win, and like you said money would become a tool to build technology, not an end. Arguably this is the case in China, but in the west it clearly is not.

There are companies in that the west start out that way, who see building technology as the end, but over time they turn into the neo-liberal line go up model, and then all the technical prowess filters out as technical people are driven out.

>>480306
>don't give a shit about ideology except for what excuse they need to bullbait others
Ideology definitely gets used for deception
>never really were "ideological"
however "non-ideological" definitely is another ideology.

You can't rid your self of ideology, without that turning into your new ideology, you can't have a reasoning mind without a world-view.

>>480309
Industrial capital is still a tool rather than "true value" or "use value". The uses of anything are potentials of an object, rather than things imbued and fixed in that object - that is, it is entirely possible for some fixed thing to be used in a novel manner, because someone thinks of another way this tool could be used that was hitherto unknown in human society, or because other advances make possible the use of something that was previously useless. For example, petroleum was a nearly useless product that was obtained as a byproduct of other industrial or prospecting operations, so easy to find that not only could the necessary oil be surface mined for basically nothing, but it was easy for someone to set up a way to offload this unwanted product en masse and corner the market. A brilliant guy figured out that this stuff could be used for motors, had the good sense to corner the existing market and figured out how to drill for more of it, then control the shipping of that oil - and it was the shipping that really made him the money rather than the oil himself.

The point here is that technology does not hold any "intrinsic value" in that sense, and in all cases, technology - by definition - is a tool whose use is ultimately in the hands of those who hold them. The command of both coin - whether it's a literal money bin or entries on an electronic ledger that you can make it - and technology are limited things, not things that are boundless in a world with theoretically infinite firms. Every actor in the market acts as if all conditions he operates in pertain to a finite world, and has to do so. If they believe that there's an infinite wellspring of anything, they're not conducting any sort of genuine business. This is what Malthus exploits to suggest something about "fundamental human nature" due to our finite existence, and it was always a hatchet job, but it appealed to a lot of people because it was expedient for what they wanted - and ideas, ideology, the institutions which monopolized knowledge and rule are themselves tools like any other, as is the body and intelligence of the human beings.

So Marx is partially cognizant of this - and really he gets the ball rolling on what would have happened next, though it was not pertinent to what Marx did or Marx's method of taking a giant wrecking ball to everything. What Marx lacked is a genuine systems thought which would have been necessary to truly verify claims about sociology and the models we proposed. While you could prove to a reasonable extent Marx's claims without this, before there was a genuine systems thought, the institutions already circumvented this and imposed a monopoly on reality itself - this is what the imperialists and Popper's filth "philosophy" did. The only reason we had systems thought is because this reality control is so obviously ruinous and ineffectively that 20th century general systems thought was necessary to make any of the machinery that mind controls us today functional, and it's still commandeered by people who only know how to push the torture button, because that's all they ever had to do. That's what capitalism at its moral core is - pushing the torture button to get more labor basically for free. Eventually, as Thatcher said, they run out of other peoples' money, but that is no consequence to them because "more blood for the blood god".

>>480318
Fag.

Seriously, you need to ban and exterminate the person who keeps posting the "meds" photos. It is pure Satanism, and this is all people like that will ever be. Satanic race. Failed race. Kill them all, before it's too late - I am very serious. Why do you faggots kowtow to any of it? Root them out ffs. Exterminating obvious and malignant Satanics should be a basic condition to say you're going to change anything. It's not enough to marginalize them, because they make it clear they will never stop with the chilling effects until they're put down like dogs in the open. That, after all, is the world they openly intend to create for us. Play Satanic games, win Satanic prizes.

Is this a death threat? Frankly, after repeated death threats - because this is what the "meds" posts are, a chilling effect backed by repeated violence - I don't see where the law has any say, since the law has very clearly been weaponized to protect, aid, and abet these people. Unlike me, these people actively kill and they kill for the maximal thrill of doing so. That is the basis of their strength - that they have insinuated, because of a defective concept of justice, that they and they alone hold impunity, and we are not allowed to acknowledge a thing these Satanics have done to the world. I remind you all, they have no reason other than creating a chilling effect with the stated and open intention, which they act on, to maximize torture openly and bring open sacrifice pits to the world, for the thrill of their god's adulation. That is the only want to interpret this familiar snark, and it is Satanic. It's well known the mods here have Satanists on board. That's what they are.

To deny the atrocities of the Satanic is to shirk any concept that you are serious about anything. If we cannot hang Satanics or even suggest that such things are necessary, due to the repeat intransigence of those who allowed the world to become that, then what are we doing here? Sooner or later, I'll be dead anyway, and they've already done worse to me than any threat some rando Satanic is likely to create. I am under no obligation to avert any action which leads to the death of a Satanic, and the worst that could happen is from fear of the law and a prison system staffed with their fellow Satanics. You would need a mass extermination project to even begin rectifying this situation to a point where life is livable again. Fortunately, Satanics out themselves regularly, and we need only mark them down and send holy death squads to those marked for extermination. Nothing would be lost, and there's really nothing stopping us from doing this. They can only hide in Air Force Bases and military intel sites for so long.

They really should consider the consequences of making the race a truly Satanic race, for most of us have no reason to ever go along with such a thing. The Satanists always rely on destroying the decencies and exploiting them, because their filth race has never known anything else. A few dead Satanics - find the 09A members and hunt them like animals and publicize their membership - would put the world of piggers on notice. These Satanics really are fearful, as their fag religion requires them to be. It's pure Randroid autism, and I know those fags all too well. So, what are you all waiting for? Why are you kowtowing to any of this or letting them continue shitting up discussion? I say this not for my own sake, since I know this won't change anything, but I ask you all - why are we extending decency to any Satanic or anyone posting Satanic snark in this day and age? It should be universal to mark down such people and shoot them dead for insolence, and I shouldn't have to be the crazy person for saying what basic self-defense would require. No sanction for Satanics under circumstances can be tolerated.

One other thing about my "death threat" - thanks to the repeat intransigence and destruction of all decencies allowing law, there will come a time where the law and police apparatus is no longer terribly effective at suppressing these threats. The people who goad me to attack have already made it clear they intend to kill me as soon as their fag party wins power again, as they intend to kill anyone in an open purge. Satanic races do not care about justice or anything someone actually did, and they made that clear to me since I was a child. If we stopped them then, or at least did something substantial to mitigate this instead of allowed failed ideologies to "jump in front", our condition now would be much better. It wasn't for lack of trying. Heaven knows how many people would form something, were begging for someone to come forward with something that spoke to them at all. Yet, where is the "resistance", the "peoples' movement?" They're still stuck on abortion and this idea that they need to reduce population to get people desperate and afraid enough to follow communists like sheep, because their political theory doesn't allow them to acknowledge that most people have no reason to go along with anything a few middle class intellectuals and opportunists want. It happens too many times to be a mistake, so I assign to the left broadly this war guilt of aiding and abetting an obvious danger. Unlike everyone else, they actually believed they were the opposition and didn't get a single thing for it. They didn't even get bribes to take a fall. They did it for free, because they're shameless cuckolds - in fact, many of them went into debt to have the privilege to sell us out, and then were told "oopsie" as their lives were cut short, ruined in service to the creed. Idiots. But, humans never had anything else in them. They'd rather aid and abet Satanics then do a simple thing to clean up a cesspit.

Fortunately, conversations still happen here, and I'll never stop calling these people fags. I hope someone finds the "meds" poster and boils that Satanic alive.

>>480292
>It depends on your level of ideological purity.
It's not about ideological purity. It's about class analysis.

>The Soviet Union was the worker state you were going to get while having to smash fascism and make up a century of industrial development in a decade.
It did smash fascism and bring about industrial development. But it still wasn't a worker state.

>I did investigate the economics and war production of fascist Germany. It was a disorganized shit show.
War in general is a disorganized shit show. Soviet evacuation of industry was pure chaos too.

>The Nazis sold out the public sector via privatization, and that wrecked their economic efficiency.
Doesn't mean much when it comes to war economies. Even liberal United States had MOD running the fucking war economy.

>Nothing, the Nazis are dust.
You sure about that? They are as dust as the fucking communists.

>I want you to stop perpetuating the myth that the Nazis were competent.
They objectively were competent retard. You can't wage world war for five years without being at least somewhat competent.

They conquered continental Europe and then almost BTFOd your retarded ass. You may have produced more tanks, but their tanks were BETTER for the majority of war.

>I know for a fact that the bolsheviks did better, the Soviet Union became an industrial super-power in both military and economic terms.
It did not. It became in military terms, but not in economic terms.

>They did that while they almost doubled the life span of their population. Every societal metric dramatically improved.
IT WAS A FUCKING FEUDAL SHITHOLE RETARD. EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE "DRAMATICALLY" IMPROVES AFTER INDUSTRIALIZATION RETARD. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS RETARD AND LEARN SOME BASIC HISTMAT RETARD.

Germany - already industrialized when the nazis took over.
Russia - a feudal agrarian shithole when the bolsheviks took over.

It's called growth from a low level retard.

>They had a more difficult starting point too.
Russia literally had a shitton of natural resources to be self sufficient. It was a perfect fucking starting point for forced industrialization.

>If the communists had prevailed in Germany and been able to start off with an industrial system as fully developed as the one in Germany, we'd be living under world communism right now.
Ahistorical BULLSHIT.

Ifs, buts.. SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD.

>The Nazis managed to take Germany which was a huge and very advanced industrial power and completely wreck it within less than 2 decades.
HOLY SHIT you are SO FUCKING RETARDED.

Germany emerged out of the ww1 with a FUCKING REVOLUTION. Its economy screeched to a halt, it got reparations up its ass, then fucking Great Depression hit for good measure.

That economy was completely wrecked before nazis even got to sniff a whiff of power.

>When growth slowed to 3% in the 80s, the soviets considered it unbearable stagnation.
Official Soviet figures were shit. If you genuinely studied how Soviet economy worked you would know this. Hell, even fucking Keeran and Kenny in "Socialism Betrayed" knew this.

The simple facts ARE: after industrialization economic growth slowed to such levels that it led to a MASSIVE crisis in the superstructure that resulted in a COMPLETE COLLAPSE of the whole system.

It doesn't matter what growth figures capitalism has. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT MODE OF PRODUCTION HERE, and clearly official 3% were not enough for it.

>>480293
>I don't understand why you would ever consider comparing the fascist regimes to the SU.
It's because you can't read.

I laid out my deductive reasoning from basic histmat axioms:

1. SU post industrialization had a different mode of production.
2. Different mode of production comes about not due to voluntarism of particular vanguardoids, but due to HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.
3. Pre Great Depression SU had a capitalist mode of production equivalent to current day capitalist China.
4. Post Great Depression SU had a new mode of production.
5. Ergo Great Depression was a breaking point in all accordance with HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.
6. Great Depression was a global economic event.
7. Ergo it should've affected some other societies similarly EVEN IF THEY WERE FOLLOWING A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY.
8. Nazis had similar superstructure.
9. Nazis had similar militarizing economy.
10. Nazis came to power right after the Great Depression.
11. Ergo Nazis were moving in the same direction due to HARD ECONOMIC DETERMINISM.

>Looking at the material conditions of workers: In the Soviet system wages for workers rose, living conditions rocketed upwards, while in the Axis powers wages for workers fell and living conditions took a nose dive.
You don't know shit retard.

At the time of industrialization living conditions fell massively compared to NEP times. They reached NEP levels only when Khrushchev came to power.

>The Soviets build a efficient dynamic public sector
Now you're just spewing retarded propaganda. It was anything but dynamic lol.

>From a hismat and flow of matter perspective these 2 systems did pretty much the opposite.
They did the opposite to you because you don't know even basic histmat.

Either address my deductive reasoning or fuck off retardoid.

>>480305
>Political organization and power in the Soviet Union was rooted in the worker councils, which were called "Soviets". The Fascists had nothing like that. That's a pretty big difference.
Soviets became a purely decorative institution in the course of Civil War. Soviet membership was completely controlled by party committees (gorkoms, obkoms, etc). Those committees mirrored Soviets at every level of the hierarchy of the Soviet Government, and they were the real centers of political power.

Soviet Constitution circa 36 had nothing to do with the really existing Soviet Union, because the real government of the Soviet Union was its Communist Party.

>>480323
Lol the Nazis were a joke that rolled up the first time someone told the faggots "no, we won't be doing that". Every other country the Nazis conquered, they were practically invited in by traitor generals and aristocrats. Hitler bragged about doing this.

We should break one myth - that wars are ever fought "competently" or for their stated aims, let alone the grand fantastical narratives that are given in propaganda. After all is done, foreign policy is not conducted by retards who actually believe what is said on the shows. They can be realists or institutionalists or some other type of foreign relations approach, but never do they believe they're actually fighting for ideology or a "struggle of essences" or "struggle of systems". There is a version of history where the Nazis don't go full retard, and frankly I see the full retards of Germany being Nazi aristocracy more than Hitler. Hitler based on what I've read tried to tell the retard aristocrats "hey, dumbfucks, you need oil to have tanks and any of our modern tactics, so go capture some oil fields for fuck's sake". For this, Hitler is blamed for "interfering with the best and brightest", and when these talking points obviously point to the interest of the post-war technocrats that took over the United States, you know it's the same shitty revisionist history.

But seriously, the Nazis had no business thinking they were going to win any protracted war, and the Nazis did not think this. Everything about the Nazis was premised on the belief that the world would let them continue taking countries unopposed, and Poland was the last straw to get the British and Americans to stop pretending coexistence was possible. This ultimately came about because the Nazis only ever existed for eugenics and conducting the social engineering the Empire wanted, and the Nazis and their fellow travelers thought they could use German victory in Poland to push out the democratic facade and Nazify America then and there. The Nazis were most invested in creating a coup in the United States and relitigating the same Germanic racism they always believed in, and the belief that the wrong side won 1914. The same fellow travelers pushed the Nazis to attack the Soviet Union, because for the fellow travelers, the Nazis were only tools for the "great Jehad", to be used and abused. That's how Satanics always think, and how they continued to operate after the war. The only thing a eugenist believes in is this maximal betrayal, because no one will ever tell them no. No one will ever boil alive these fucking Satanics as we should have done when Hitler's faggots began yapping. In all of this, there is no "ideology" that blinds anyone. The Nazis were the party of eugenics and its base really, really wanted eugenics. There is no other version of what eugenics does - it would always create Nazism and suggest the Nazi MO, including its efforts to contest the empire. For the Soviet Union, they too were in an effort to both contest their position in the Empire, with fellow travelers around the world, and they faced a three-way internal battle. One faction in the Soviet Union were always Germanic and eugenist at heart, one faction was "Socialism in One Country", and another just wanted to sell out as fast as possible to the Americans and abandon the whole communism thing. The latter failed pretty early on but periodically sprung up, and that was sort of what Trotsky represented but what he was really about was something looking further ahead - long run goal was always for the United States to "mask off" and become something very different, and FDR/Eisenhower/Nixon were all quite aware that their function was to facilitate this and acted accordingly. Basically, a lot of the fears of "globalists" are based on a real plan that was hatched then, if not planned before 1914 as "the way" to unify the world through war, fear, depopulation, and social psychology. But, that project is ongoing, and if you say too much about what that really is, that's when the screeching really begins. You can't say what la-li-lu-le-lo is, you know. You can only have weird postmodern video games to announce their next plan every so often.

You can piece together parts of this history, especially from our present vantage point where so much must have moved to make 2020 happen, but it is also clear that whatever the original plan was, this is a deviation, because that plan was a terrible, shitty, and dumb idea based on one pseudoscientific fad after another. This is what you get when the commons think they're actually going to become not just aristocratic permanent elites, but living gods through technology and Harry Potter business. Yes, up there, this is what they actually believe. It's worse than Scientology, with Scientology being a branch / early experiment in what they wanted to make the world into. Some people try, but as a "grand narrative" it would become so big, convoluted, and contain moving parts that make the Marxian habit of mashed-up history not just counter-productive but a thing such a system would promote long past its sell-by date. (To be fair, I don't think if people did Marxism correctly, they would make these grand theories and assert passionately that they describe a total reality you can't challenge. Proper history and knowledge is not created by endless critique and insinuation. That's some low grade Masonic shit, the pablum they say to hoodwink and insult the rubes.)

Anyway this comparison of the Nazis and Soviets as "toy models" is exactly indicative of so many problems in the flawed historical theories and a completely insane view of reality, that has been reproduced deliberately. This psyop could only begin after 1945. At the time, no one was convinced this was about ideology or a "war of systems", or that there was really any good reason for the war to happen at all. It was, just like the last go around and most wars, a bunch of bullshit to kill poor people and show off new technology to oppress them after it's over. The whole thing is faggotry that would have ended early if Satanics were put down. After 1945, humanity did not outright abandon this shit and could not bring themselves to part with the lies, and so, humanity has been doomed to its present course, for no good reason other than the thrill of torture being maximized. That's all they have now - eugenics and torture. Failed race.

The difference with the Soviet Union is that they were an actual country and not a plunder and cash grab scam like the Nazis. Every anticommunist propaganda piece needs to assert that the Nazis and their fellow travelers had any interest in any sort of country a reasonable person would see as peaceful, and every time they advance this retarded ideology, it's to tell the poor that we must stay in this eternal war so that a bunch of sniveling retards and faggots can keep stealing everyone's shit. That's all it was ever for.

So, is fagposter going to try to silence this with more snark? That's all they ever have to say for themselves, because they know what they really are.

>>480323
You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society. While they had stratification in society and that ought to be avoided, there really wasn't a class formation until the neo-liberal shock-doctrine period after the dissolution.

Comparing the level of organization of the soviet system against the fascist system, it clearly shows that the Soviet System started out in disarray and became increasingly organized over time, while Germany started out very organized it became increasingly chaotic under Fascism. This trend overall continues with living conditions as well, it improved in the Soviet system while it deteriorated under fascism. The Soviet system started out from a lower level of development, but that was no advantage, The socialist mode of production is intended to come after the capitalist mode of production, not the feudal mode of production.

The Soviets definitely became an economic super power too, not just a military power they reached the number 2 spot right behind the US. Since the USSR didn't have finances that can be compared to a capitalist system, comparisons are based on what can be directly compared like industrial output and so on.

With regards too who's dust, the closest thing to a Nazi-type state with ethno supremacy is Israel, and they've gone off the rails and will fall apart before the end of this decade. The remaining communist power of the 20th century is still going strong. Granted China had to make compromises to global capitalism, but they kinda beat the capitalists at their own game.

If the communist revolution in Germany had succeeded then the communist block would have started with both the advanced industry in Germany and as you pointed out the vast resources in Russia. That would have been the geopolitical high ground to influence world affairs. WW2 and fascism would have been a marginal conflict because the rest of the Axis powers would have been to weak to set the world on fire.

You make a valid point that Germany was suffering under WW1 reparations, however that does not function as an excuse. The Nazis liquidated the public sector to pay for militarism. That's not fixing anything, its just setting up society for another hard failure.

>>480329
I agree with you the worker councils did not have enough power, but the Soviet system clearly prioritized the economic interests of workers a lot more than comparable capitalist societies. That could not happen unless workers had power too.

>>480345
>You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society.
I think the problem here is you have a confused definition of class. Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations. And in the Soviet Union, because they did not follow through with democratizing work, they retained one class that created the surplus and one class that appropriated the surplus and decided what to do with it. And it was precisely the conflict between these two classes that ultimately overthrew the system. It was none other than members of the bureaucratic class who became the wealthy post-Soviet oligarchs by profiting off the sale of state infrastructure.

>>480345
>You are erroneously insinuating that the Soviet Union was a class society.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm deducing it from histmat.

To claim that SU had no classes is to claim that asiatic mode of production had no classes. It is equivalent to claiming that Bronze Age societies had no classes retard.

>Comparing the level of organization of the soviet system against the fascist system, it clearly shows that the Soviet System started out in disarray and became increasingly organized over time
Again speaking out of your ass. The system got more disorganized as the time went on due to all the economic reforms and the growing black market.

>The Soviets definitely became an economic super power too
They did not.

>they reached the number 2 spot right behind the US
number 2 in what? fucking cast iron production lol?

Soviets had some areas where they were leading, but overall performance was not that of an economic powerhouse. Agriculture was especially shit.

>Since the USSR didn't have finances that can be compared to a capitalist system, comparisons are based on what can be directly compared like industrial output and so on.
Then compare industrial output lol. And then compare labor productivity and resource utilization for good measure kek.

Soviet Union was a military rival to the US, but it was never an economic rival, no matter how far you bend yourself into a pretzel lol.

>The remaining communist power of the 20th century is still going strong.
China is capitalist, just like SU was in the NEP period.

The only "communist" countries left (ie with the asiatic-industrial mode of production) are NK and maybe Cuba.

This is anything but "going strong" lol.

>If the communist revolution in Germany had succeeded then the communist block would have started with both the advanced industry in Germany and as you pointed out the vast resources in Russia.
Doesn't mean shit leftoid. This is not how economic determinism works.

The results would've been the same even if retarded vanguardoids seized state power in the fucking US of A lol.

>You make a valid point that Germany was suffering under WW1 reparations, however that does not function as an excuse.
I'm not making any excuses. I'm just telling you you're fucking retarded if you expect Soviet industrialization growth rates from fucking industrialized post-war Germany.

>The Nazis liquidated the public sector to pay for militarism.
THE NAZIS MILITARIZED THE FUCKING ECONOMY YOU FUCKING RETARD.

>That's not fixing anything, its just setting up society for another hard failure.
YOU CAN'T FIX ANYTHING RETARD. HUMANS DON'T HAVE THE HISTORICAL AGENCY TO FIX ANYTHING. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Individual gas particles can't fix how the the gas is distributed retard.

HOLY SHIT you piss me off!

>>480346
>I agree with you the worker councils did not have enough power
They had no power at all.

>but the Soviet system clearly prioritized the economic interests of workers a lot more than comparable capitalist societies
doesn't mean that it wasn't a class society retard

every class society treats its exploited class differently, duh

first and foremost it prioritized the interests of the nomenklatura to the extent that the mode of production allowed it

>That could not happen unless workers had power too.
lrn to logic lol

>>480348
>Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations.
Great, another retard.

Class is defined by its relationship to the production process.

Nomenklatura was no less of a class than capitalists in this regard.

Real shit, my frustration with juice-sipping sandal-wearing leftoids-vanguardoids of various kind stems from them simply NOT BEING MARXISTS.

To be a marxist is to be a hard determinist, period. And idealistic leftoids simply can't stomach hard determinism as can be seen throughout history.

Their daddy Leninoid is a perfect example of it - blanquist narodnik idealist faggot with a marxist veneer.

>>480352
Now you're just being pedantic.

>>480355
I'm not. Relationship to production is objective, while "muh power dynamics" is abstraction in your fucking head.

>>480356
Nope, pure pedantry, verging on sophistry actually.

>>480357
Tell me how "power relations" are external to your mind, brainlet.

Politics is literally a part of superstructure with its corresponding "power relations".

Fucking leftoid retards.

The dude also has a good video on the Soviets.

Remember kids, if vanguardoid opens his mouth - he is lying (to himself first and foremost).

This thread is sponsored by the CIA

>>480359
It's really funny that you seem to think someone who believes the Soviet Union had classes is a Leninist.

>>480364
wat? I think SU had classes and I'm not a Leninist lol

obviously the author of the video is not a Leninist either

>>480348
>Class isn't about about disparities, it's about competing power relations.
Power relations are difficult to measure. What's easier to measure is on whose behalf the surplus is spend, and in the Soviet Union, the bureaucrats, party members, and so on, didn't get much more than workers.
>And in the Soviet Union, because they did not follow through with democratizing work, they retained one class
The Soviet Union did have stratification between workers and a type of intelligentsia (for lack of a better term). But stratification is not the same as class division.
>And it was precisely the conflict between these two
>that ultimately overthrew the system.
In the Soviet system the strata of intelligentsia wasn't able to get the same kind of luxuries and privileges that their counter-parts in capitalism got. That's why this faction pushed to restore capitalism. While that does indeed show lacking democratization, it also shows that the Soviets did not have class divisions, otherwise, there wouldn't have been any drive to revert to capitalism.

>>480372
>But stratification is not the same as class division.
Good thing I said nothing about stratification in my post then. Class is about independent, non-overlapping interests and divergent power between groups. If you have this (and the Soviet Union undeniably did), you have classes. This idea that the surplus value appropriators will simply act out of the benevolent goodness of their hearts in the interests of surplus value producers is anti-materialist. And at its core, it's the same ideology used to justify the hierarchies of slave masters, feudal lords, and capitalists.

>>480372
>What's easier to measure is on whose behalf the surplus is spend, and in the Soviet Union, the bureaucrats, party members, and so on, didn't get much more than workers.
They did get much more surplus than workers. Not as much as capitalists, but this is completely irrelevant, because this was a different mode of production.

Why can't you evaluate a separate mode of production on its own terms? Why do you always need to compare it to capitalism?

You don't analyze capitalism by making constant references to feudalism, do you?

>>480374
Why shouldn't we make constant references to feudalism? Capitalism is the unfinished revolution against feudalism.

>>480375
Because it's a different self-contained mode of production, a self-reproducing economic organism that can be studied in isolation.

Capitalist revolution was finished, I dunno what you're talking about.

>>480378
>Capitalist revolution was finished
Adam Smith disagreed.

>>480379
well, he can disagree all he wants in his grave

I define capitalism as universal market in all the factors of production

>>480374
Well at least you agree that the soviets had a different mode of production. Surplus allocation is universal tho, every mode of production has it. The Soviet Union always gets compared to capitalism because it was an attempt to overcome capitalism. Marx compared capitalism to feudalism a lot, because in the 1800s capitalism was still fighting against feudal systems. Feudalism still is in the economic discourse, today. Some economists see feudal aspects in Wall-street or big-tech.

>>480378
>self-contained mode of production, a self-reproducing economic organism that can be studied in isolation.
Quadruple NO on that.

Capitalism is not self contained, it has a fucktonne of externalities
It is being reproduced by brutal political imposition
It is not analogous to an organism
Nothing can be studied out of context

>>480382
>Surplus allocation is universal tho, every mode of production has it.
Yes, but surplus distribution is relevant for analyzing class composition too.

>The Soviet Union always gets compared to capitalism because it was an attempt to overcome capitalism.
It gets compared because it was a rival mode of production. Still doesn't mean it was a classless mode of production.

>Marx compared capitalism to feudalism a lot
He didn't compare it to anything in his main most mature work. He analyzed it in the abstract.

>Some economists see feudal aspects in Wall-street or big-tech.
Varoufakis is just a grifter that doesn't even mention surplus in his analysis.

>Capitalism is not self contained, it has a fucktonne of externalities
This is some outdated Rosa Luxemburg take. Global capitalism for all intends and purposes is a self-contained self-reproducing system. Externalities don't affect its internal logic, they are the result of it.

>It is being reproduced by brutal political imposition
Superstructure is part of the mode of production. "brutal political imposition" is part of the mode of production in every class society lol.

>It is not analogous to an organism
It is. Histmat is literally evolutionism but applied to human societies.

>Nothing can be studied out of context
Nothing is studied out of context. Because every established mode of production is self-contained, just like every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.

>>480391
>Because every established mode of production is self-contained, just like every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.
ie, I like to use the concept of homeostasis when analyzing modes of production

analogy with the biological world is justified on methodological grounds because every kind of evolutionism is ultimately based on thermodynamics

>>480391
>surplus distribution is relevant for analyzing class composition too.
Sure.
>It gets compared because it was a rival mode of production. Still doesn't mean it was a classless mode of production.
The economic relations in the Soviet Union had some left over feudal and capitalist relations, and the dominant mode of production was lower stage socialism. Which did not produce class divisions. However it can be criticized for producing stratification.

>He didn't compare it to anything in his main most mature work. He analyzed it in the abstract.
Nope, Marx did compare capitalism and feudalism a lot, you can't cherry pick some of his texts where he didn't and pretend the other stuff doesn't exist.

>Global capitalism for all intends and purposes is a self-contained self-reproducing system.
So capitalism is a perpetuum mobile ? You serious ?
>Externalities don't affect its internal logic, they are the result of it.
Wow talk about circular logic.

>"brutal political imposition" is part of the mode of production in every class society
So you agree it's not a self-reproducing organism. Because organisms have none of that, no imposed superstructure and no classes.

>Nothing is studied out of context. Because every established mode of production is self-contained.
<LALALA i'll just ignore context
>every organism is self-contained, even if its constantly interacting with its environment.
Lol you are contradicting your self in the same sentence now.

>I like to use the concept of homeostasis when analyzing modes of production
Marx proved capitalism has internal contradictions therefore it can't achieve stasis

>analogy with the biological world is justified on methodological grounds because every kind of evolutionism is ultimately based on thermodynamics
Biology has to obey thermodynamics
Modes of production have to obey thermodynamics
It doesn't follow that therefore modes of production behave like biological systems, it just proves that both are part of the same reality.

>>480394
>The economic relations in the Soviet Union had some left over feudal and capitalist relations, and the dominant mode of production was lower stage socialism.
I don't believe in lower stages, communism, and other shit that doesn't logically follow from histmat.

We have empirical (ie historical) data only about two industrial modes of production: ancient-industrial and asicatic-industrial. That's it.

So your appeals to pulled out of the ass future stages means nothing to me.

>Which did not produce class divisions.
It did.

Class composition of the SU was extensively analyzed by Voslensky in his "Nomenklatura" from marxist positions.

It took a person ACTUALLY LIVING under that mode of production to actually analyze its class character. Duh.

>Nope, Marx did compare capitalism and feudalism a lot, you can't cherry pick some of his texts where he didn't and pretend the other stuff doesn't exist.
Shut the fuck up, I can do whatever the fuck I want.

Capital is the main book where Marx analyzes capital as a mode of production proper, ie self-reproducing self-contained abstract economic organism.

I don't give a fuck about his earlier political-philosophical ramblings.

>So capitalism is a perpetuum mobile ?
Is biological organism a perpetuum mobile, retard?

>Wow talk about circular logic.
What circular logic bitch? Capitalism as any organism transforms environment around it, ie it transforms climate, which is an externality to the mode of production in this particular instance, because this particular climate change FOLLOWS from the mode of production, not the other way around.

>So you agree it's not a self-reproducing organism. Because organisms have none of that, no imposed superstructure and no classes.
Holy shit you're literally too subIQ to understand me.

MODE OF PRODUCTION CAN BE VIEWED AS ANALOGOUS TO A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM, BECAUSE IT'S A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ON A HIGHER, SOCIETAL, LEVEL

It doesn't mean that they are structurally the same holy shit. IT MEANS THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE BECAUSE THEY ARE ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION OF MATTER. One is biological, the other is social.

>LALALA i'll just ignore context
Holy shit shut the fuck up cringelord

>Lol you are contradicting your self in the same sentence now.
Do organisms have homeostasis or not, you dumb bitch?

>Marx proved capitalism has internal contradictions therefore it can't achieve stasis
You're so fucking dumb it's unbelievable.

First, Marx didn't "prove" anything, he provided a theoretical framework.

Second, biological organisms have muh """contradictions""" too bitch, and they STILL have homeostasis

>Biology has to obey thermodynamics
>Modes of production have to obey thermodynamics
>It doesn't follow that therefore modes of production behave like biological systems, it just proves that both are part of the same reality.
What do you think "being part of the same reality" means bitch?

Laws of thermodynamics are FUNDAMENTAL laws that govern ANY evolutionary system, AT ANY LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION.

As opposed to your fucking dialectical mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

>assuming one ideological school is universally applicable
ISHYGDDT

Material conditions, people.

>>480405
So your ideology is that material conditions matter more than anything else.

>>480406
Prove it.

>>480407
And now your ideology is that assertions must be proven. How ideological of you.