Did the kulaks deserve it?

I am a bit of a tankie, but I don't fall in that kind of meme.
The kulaks never burn their crops, this is just soviet propaganda. Starvation is just daily routine in Russia and was accentuated by the incompetence of the state that rejected the responsibility on the kulaks.

Burning food to prevent the enemy from taking it is a time-honored Russian tradition.

Veeky Forums needs to take the tankie pill. Seems like Stalin did nothing wrong after all.

Food is the enemy of the proles

Yes the kulaks made the famine worse by hoarding grain, they were not decent people.

Iam Fascis, but Stalin was a great man that saved the world from communism and Judeohitlerism
Its literally American propaganda

>Im fascist
>support Stalin

What? you are a "nazbol" meme

No, Stalin saved my people and killed Trotskist communist that wanted to create culturless society.

>Stalin was a great man that saved the world from communism

hahahahahahahaha

He purged all the Jewrmanians that wanted to spread the revolution

This is why you are a nazbol. I bet you are the user who hate the rothschild so much, and also support north korea and commie romania in other threads.

I like Nikolay Ustryalov and i of course support DPKR against the Jewish Americanism, also socialist Romania was perfect state, Ceaușescu´s wife was the only problem.

Please go on

Why is this even a debated topic? The kulaks definitely deserved it. The latest presidential election in the US is yet another bit of evidence towards the fact that uneducated masses have no concept of how domestic or global economic policy or anything else works for that matter. The masses, tired of obama giving them fucking health insurance and the corrupt left, literally elected a reality TV star known to be obsessed with money and being retarded so that he could put his CEOs in charge of all gov departments for deregulation and bringing back fucking coal jobs.
Its not far fetched that peasants didnt understand collectivization and refused to give up their "hard earned" goods for redistribution amongst themselves. Inadvertently fucking themselves.

>The kulaks definitely deserved it

This is debatable tankie, to Stealin eyes a person who own a family farm is a kulak/enemy too. Also, you seem to hate the proletarian you want to help. If you think those ignored masses deserve to die because don't fit into your meme ideology, then you are as retarded as the nazis you much hate.

>Katyn
>Comnitted by nazis
Uh, what?

No, you are right user. It makes total sense to give uneducated working class people control of the government. This is the dumbest arguement that you get from anti-communists. Gee, you guys really look down on the working class. Yeah, they are fucking dumb. That doesnt mean that they deserve to be mistreated. The right often elevates the working class and encourages their hard work all the while cutting their wages and benefits cuz "coroporate taxes are too high," while the company rakes in billions in profits yearly come on bruh. I fight for more opportunity, EDUCATION, fair wages, and workers rights in general. I'm not gonna french kiss them and I am not one of those idiots who thinks the worker is some infallable source of earthy wisdom. As far as meme ideologies go, thats a silly term. Every individual has their own personal ideology, cant be memed. If you are gonna go socialism vs capitalism, both have profoundly affected the world so much so that we can't go back. Neither one is a meme.

And how you really fight againt the system, with memes and complains? Unless you and your comrades have a organized plan and put in march, your words will mean nothing but victimist angst. What do you do for the coming revolution armchair revolutionry? why porky must fear you?

No you fucking scum

Corporate taxes should be zero

>Did the kulaks deserve it?
About as much as the Jews did.

...

>Giving workers control of the means of production is dumb.
So....
Why even be communist in the first place, why not just be capitalist?
Sounds to me like you just want to rob people.

...

What proportion of Kulaks burned their crops?

We know for certain the grain was taken by the state. We can't be sure every Kulak participated in organized mass grain burnings throughout the country, it seems more like a few isolated events which the Soviets found useful in their propaganda.

They had it coming but Stalin was unnecessarily harsh and harmed a lot of totally innocent people.

Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are just populist forms of social democracy that oppose Western imperialism and believe in strict party control.

They don't seek to abolish commodity production or sincerely empower the working class.

Stalin and Khrushchev were hardly more socialist than Jeremy Corbyn.

You'd have to be pretty retarded to be a communist in the first place.
Hating food is just the end result.

>give to uneducated working class people control of the government/MoP is dumb.

So you are not communist then LARPer, this is why tankies/stalinists are cancer, even others socialists hates you.

I never claimed to be a revolutionary. I just answered op's question. How do I "fight the system?" I'm not trying to fight the system, for the most part I like the system. I try to accomplish my goals by setting an example for those around me as I am my own harshest critic. I am active in my community. I support those who think would help my community. I vote in as many elections as I can, not just presidential.

Why? They can afford to pay taxes.

> sounds to me like you just want to rob people
let me guess, you are one of those people that thinks taxation is unlawful theft by th gov. Thats why you relate so hard to the poor kulak. What makes you think I want to rob people? When did I put any stress on personal gain? Did I not just write about how I am trying to make life easier and protect the worker. I already answered your question in the post you responded to and you wonder why I call people dumb. You are the reason. But its ok, I'm trying to get good education more available to you.

Stalinists are just anti-imperialist social democrats

they didn't deserve it

Then you are cinic oportunist, you don't really care about the people problems but using them to feel important, this is why you support an autoritarian collectivist control freak, you desire control other people's lifes to fit them in your worker state.

>Socialist Romania was a perfect state.
Uh sure thing pal. :)

>Farmers deserve to be killed for being of a certain ethnicity

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

Oh hey, I'm getting recognition on here for telling the truth against the western lies they spread about the DPRK. If I'm getting attacked by the masses, that must mean that I am doing something right by telling a very unpopular truth about these "evil regimes" that the west likes to parrot so much.

>let me guess, you are one of those people that thinks taxation is unlawful theft by th gov.

No, I'm one of those people that resent the idea of a gang of bandits wearing stolen army uniforms holding me up at gunpoint and telling me that my house is now the property of the proletariat.

>What makes you think I want to rob people?
The fact that you're a communist and that's what communists do.

>Great Purge
>started by Yezhov
?????
the Purge started when Yagoda was still in charge of the NKVD, and the first two Moscow Trials happened under him

I keep telling people that there's no difference between social democracy and communism but they refuse to listen.

>omg user, stop calling Bernie a communist he's just a social democrat, it's totally different!
No.

...

> you dont really care, you use them to feel important
How are you this dumb? I care about them as a people and work to make sure they arent abused. You realize you can think someone is dumb and ignorant and try to help them right? You can't even comprehend that someone like me exists so you are trying to justify my altruistic (but really rationally egoistic) intentions with some alterior motive. My only motive is that I believe this will improve the society in which I live, which will benefit my children. You slime seem to think that everyone does things for immediate benefit, well that just shows the problem with your ideology doesnt it. There is nothing wrong with speaking the truth, the working class and the majority of people are quite ignorant. They cannot rule themselves successfully.

> you desire to control other people's lives to fit them in your worker state
Wow this sounds exactly like what Jordan Peterson said on Joe Rogans pod cast today, you unoriginal shit. Peterson hates social marxism because of the SJW left which is irrational. But he is also an individualist and lashes out at communism every chance he gets, he is eager to point out how to be successful as an individual in a society but forgets that society itself requires sacrifice. You are not just living for you when you are part of a group.

> even other socialists hate you
yeah there are like 100 forms of socialism, of course they would hate each other

> not a commie cuz means of production to workers
GTFO of here with that grade school tier bullshit. Quoting the most famous line from marx as if you even read the commie manifesto or das kapital....or for that matter anything by lenin, stalin, trotsky, bukharin, adam smith, cherneshevsky, dostoyevsky, tolstoy, robespierre, rousseau, danton, or even thomas paine.
The bolsheviks and to a lesser extent the mensheviks believed that the workers had to be told what to do by a vangaurd of revolutionaries either in the party or by a group of councels. The soviet theroy had its problems, particularly when Lenin mandated party unity leading to a consolidation of power allowing for a dictatorship. Giving the means of production to the workers directly is like direct democracy, it sounds good but it doesnt work. The only person to really try it was Gaddafi. His Jamaharya was quite impressive in the sense that he had multiple councels that would recieve direct votes from his citizens. He had his national arms stores accessible to his citizens for times of crisis. He gave his citizens a percentage of the profits off the nationally opperated businesses. This all sounds great. Until you realize that while they could run a small country in africa, but they unsurprisingly fucked themselves in terms of foreign policy. Sure a gold standard would have increased their economy but guess who would not stand for it, the rest of the world economy! Their easily accessible arms were turned against them by foreign agents. Gaddafi got a knife in the pooper, his oil fields dont bring anyone money, and libya is gonna bea shit hole for at least 30 years.

>Trust me goy, I have your best interests at heart!
No.
Stay the fuck away from my lawnmower, Red.

>Muh individualism is bad
Go live in North Korea then if you really want to live in a (((workers paradise))). Do you commie faggot.

Nice answers guy. I give you explanations and you give me biased sound bytes. You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

Pinochet thought Margaret Thatcher was a good leader. Also pic related.

>You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

Get thee behind me Satan.

>the latest presidential election in the US

ousted yourself right there.

You are a psychopath like all your "heroes" in your pic: "they don't deserve to have control of their lives because they are dumbs" "The things will be better if I and my comrades control the society" "This is for a better future". You are no better than poltard in that regard.

Pinochet literally did nothing wrong.

>my perfectly noble goals

Since when is genocide denial a noble goal?

>Katyn
>Nazis
>Not Soviets

You are absolutely retarded and have got to be the most infuriating kind of person to even the most self-loathing Pole.

Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. The government he built spent the next eighty years being plagued by corruption, infighting, and an absolute infestation of mass-murdering sadists, before finally collapsing. He's the chief reason that Russia (and Eastern Europe as a whole) remains an economic backwater dominated by cronyism and repression. it was Lenin who set up the first Gulags and initiated the first purges of non-bolshevik groups that fought in the revolution. Stalin provides an easy scapegoat for lefties who like communism but cannot defend the horrors of the Soviet Union.

And Lenin knew he was full of shit. Hence why he didn't allow Russia to have a democratic process after the Tzar was killed. He employed dirty politics, intimidation and eventually civil war (3 times) just to subvert any chance of Russia resisting his party. He and his buddies wanted the power instead of someone else having it. It was as simple as that. Their beliefs were completely phony and mostly lies. Hence why the Kronstadt sailors rebelled when they saw what "communism" actually looked like. Of course the Soviets then murdered them

Why are commies such niggers?

classic kulak

> this guy thinks N Korea is communist
bruh
Bruh
BRUH
North Korea hasnt been communist for real since 1960, in 1980 Juche became their official ideology. In 2009 they removed communism from their consititution. Juche was originally described as a "creative application of marxism-leninism" which basically means nor marxism-leninism but we need money from russia and china. It centers around the cult of personality of the Kim family, national self-relaince, and self sufficiency. These are all just words. Analysts say that it is basically just traditional dynastic korean rule in a modern world. Communism does not have dynastic rule. Communism does not have shitty workers rights. Communism does not have class stratification.
This isnt a "not my communism so it isnt communism" arguement. N korea is as communist as the USA if trump just decided to hang red flags everywhere. It isnt. It is a totalitarian monarchy that thrves on nationalism.

>Nice answers guy. I give you explanations and you give me biased sound bytes. You are not participating in the conversation, probably because you have no good response to give aside from "I no like u cuz u commie and commie bad." In spite of me explaining my perfectly noble goals.

you literally just asked loaded questions and tagged your phrases with key words to give them the connotation of being so noble in spirit that even debating against them in an organized, objective way would make him seem like an asshole. And now this is like the two of you are in the middle of the race you are trying to discourage him from even trying by saying that you have already won and he inst mentally equipped to handle you because you sophistic capability forced him to reassert his position so that he would jump into all the logical traps you set for him. if you want to argue the "facts" of your supposedly noble goals and positions, you need to support that shit with sources and diagrams and actual evidence, otherwise you are just throwing around mindless conjecture that gets nobody anywhere and we have another "impressionable & arrogant left v. underequiped but passionate right" thread that pops up every fucking day.

>Communism does not have shitty workers rights
We got a comedian over here!

so that he wouldn't* jump into

>not REEL gommunism

Communism is DEMOCRATIC control of the means are production, If the workers do not have DEMOCRATIC control of the means of production, then this is not communism LARPer. Besides, state capitalism is STILL capitalism.

primo example

wait do you honestly not believe in government of any kind? Do you want people to just do whatever they want? Are you for real retarded?

Since when did I say genocide was a goal of mine. This is yet another example of shutting down discussion. No one has mentioned genocide at all here.

> took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy
Thats just another way of saying lberating the people from a completely incompitent and parasitic government. The Russia Tsar was one of the richest men in the world, his country was a major power and he still had famines, entered into useless wars, failed to educated the masses, and failed to industrialize at a time when everyone industrialized.
You are wrong about Russia being plagued by corruption, infighting, and infestation of mass murderng sadists. Because all of that was going on under the tsar as well. Russia has a culture of corruption which is seen in its literature from even the late 1700s. Infighting is just as constant. Mass murders did not really happen, but the technology for that was just coming out. The tsar had famines that killed many and he allowed pogroms to occur on his jewish settlers in the east. No to mention the that serfdom only became illegal in 1866! Thats american civil war times folks.
Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.

We got big dicks. Ooba booga where the bourgious women at?

Socialism: DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. It is a transitional state from capitalism to communism. Since communism is unattainable, this dictatorship is indefinite. It lasts forever.

Again, a tankie behaving like a nigger. Pure autism under the guise of trying to sound edgy.
>Hurr trust government, freedom is for retards!
Okay so if I give you a free helicopter ride, you won't complain about muh rights and muh oppression then?

Hey LARPer, Communism is a stateless society. When you attempt to seize control of the reigns of the state opportunistic men are going to compete against you. opportunism will undermine your attempt to use the State for good. Also, I don't consider Lenin a real communist because real communism is democratic socialism not "dictatorship of the proletariat". Lenin and Stalin were just malicious men trying to cash in on the centralization of political power.

We are debating. This is not the forum for citations and sources. It is too inconvenient. People in this read are expected to be somewhat well read on the subject they are discussing or are trying to learn about it. He is attacking me and I am debating circles around him. Thanks for assessing the situation, but he wouldnt fall into my "logical traps" if he knew what the fuck he was talking about.

The soviet union, cuba, and many other socalist countries have great workers rights records far ahead of what the US had at the time they were mandated. This isnt propoganda, just because there were human rights violations and prison camps, odes not mean the rst of the population did not have very strong workers unions, free healthcare, free education, and housing. If you doubt this, then read about it. Only the asian commie countries completely forgo that whole point of comunism in general.

I literaly addressed specifically that in my comment. You cant use it once I have already used it.

Well its actually either, but I am ok with it being democratically controlled as long as it is a republican democracy. It was you who saying I wasnt really a commie because the workers didnt have the means of production, which technically they due in a republican democracy.

>It lasts forever.

Kek

> LARPer
> communism is a stateless society
> I dont consider lenin to be a real communist
> real communism is democratic socialism

Thats bad bait my friend. You should be ashamed

What you mean for socialism is just an authoritarian socdem with gunz.

>Thats just another way of saying lberating the people from a completely incompitent and parasitic government.
Relying on the abiguity of language to reduce his argument into semantics.
>The Russia Tsar was one of the richest men in the world, his country was a major power and he still had famines, entered into useless wars, failed to educated the masses, and failed to industrialize at a time when everyone industrialized.
This fails to awnser why a Soviet Revolution, with its famines, usless wars, uneducated masses and failed attempts at revitalizing the economy was in any way a viable solution.
>You are wrong about Russia being plagued by corruption, infighting, and infestation of mass murderng sadists. Because all of that was going on under the tsar as well. Russia has a culture of corruption which is seen in its literature from even the late 1700s.
It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
>The tsar had famines that killed many and he allowed pogroms to occur on his jewish settlers in the east. No to mention the that serfdom only became illegal in 1866! Thats american civil war times folks.
Again, this fails to suffecitiently awnser why a Soviet Revolution was a viable solution to the Tsarist regime, this is mostly just conjecture and you building an emotional appeal.
>Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.
Incredibaly reductionist, and it still supports his assertion that Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. You arent really making any points here, you are just trying to paint Lenin in a more favorable light.

>Ah yes, the everlasting transition state from capitalism to communism. Enjoy the ride proles.

...

>We are debating. This is not the forum for citations and sources.
So there is no point in trying to solidify your argument with sources? It only seems like the logical thing to do if there is solid evidence out there that you are right.
>People in this [th]read are expected to be somewhat well read on the subject they are discussing or are trying to learn about it.
So you just toss the concept of "burden of evidence" aside because you can get away with it on an anonymous forum, knowing there arent any rules for or against this concept. Slipping in between the cracks just because you are anonymous doesn't make you a very great debator, especially when empiracle evidence can be readily found an presented.
>He is attacking me and I am debating circles around him. Thanks for assessing the situation, but he wouldnt fall into my "logical traps" if he knew what the fuck he was talking about.
Again, puting yourself into a race and pretending like you have already won. Just because he isnt an expert on the subject doesnt make him wrong, and using shady dabate tactics to win a debate against people who dont know any better just shines a negative light upon you and puts into question any of the conclusions you make.

I dont mean anything. That just happens to be what I prefer.

>Relying on the abiguity of language to reduce his argument into semantics.
cuz his opening statement was semantics, what do you want from me? Why are you attacking me cuz he's an idiot.
> This fails to awnser why a Soviet Revolution, with its famines, usless wars, uneducated masses and failed attempts at revitalizing the economy was in any way a viable solution.
> The soviet union did have famines, but it should be noted that this was after a long civil war, after two recent famines under the tsar, and under a brand new government under sanctions by the major powers. The only useless was that the USSR had was Afgahnistan. The USSR educated its people from an illeteracy rate of 83% to almost complete literacy. They had some of the top scientists, engineers, and musicians in the world. The education thing is silly, anyone who knows the hx or liveed through the soviety union knows their education was on point. Failed attempts at revitalzing the economy? The 5 year plan set a record that was only just recently broken for the fastet industrial growth. Their economy was doing just fine. Keep in mind that the country went through WWI, the revolutionary/civil war, WWII, was sanctioned by the west and still under stalin managed to have food for the people, maintain a major military force, and compete with the US. Even giving aid to foreign countires. It was only in the 80s that the economy bega slowing down. Capitalist systems have booms and dips whereas socialists systems has a slow steady growth or decline. It is very impressive that they USSR accomplished what it did while competing with the west.
>It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
It is heavly fallicious to imply that I am being fallicious. To be cont.

> It is heavily fallicious to say that he is wrong about something, and then turn around and move the goalposts by saying it was happening under another condition as well.
It is very pertinent that Russia was corrupt before the USSR, because he was implying that Russia became corrupt due to communist intervention. Russia is still corrupt under capitalist democratic rule. This is not a measure of whether a system is successful or not, when it inherits corruption. I did not move the goal posts, I provided an example to show I wasnt talking out of my ass. You are trying very hard to paint me as some sort of cheat and idk why. My responses are usually pretty comprehensive.
> Again, this fails to suffecitiently awnser why a Soviet Revolution was a viable solution to the Tsarist regime, this is mostly just conjecture and you building an emotional appeal.
Well, why do I have to be the defender of everything the soviet union does in the first place. I am not a stalinist. But to answer your point, my other comments in conjunction with this one do show why the soviet system was preferable to the monarchy. The soviets provided the aforementioned benefits which you so slyly try to write off and most of the problems that they had already existed before hand. My point being that things got better for the vast majority of people under soviet rule, in a way that they would not have under the tsar. Most professors on Russian History would agree with this, there is too much data to say otherwise.
>Incredibaly reductionist, and it still supports his assertion that Lenin was an opportunistic dictator who took advantage of the Tsar's incompetence and the people's dissatisfaction to start a civil war and establish an autocracy. You arent really making any points here, you are just trying to paint Lenin in a more favorable light.
Idk why you are providing often innacurate analysis of my responses instead of provide responses of your own. Cont...

oh god, 3 posts of this shit? Do i really have to sit and point out the flaws in 3 2000 character posts, digging thru all of your personal attacks, petty anecdotes and appeal to emotions?

>the Soviet Union wasn't democratic
begone revisionist

>Lenin did initiate the first purges but they were nowhere near as terrible as stalins. Lenin did not set up the first gulags, work camps already existed in Siberia as Russia has a tradition of exhiling people to siberia.
I am not here to rewrite history or defend lenin. He was opportunistic as most leaders in history are. Saying he took advantage of the tsars incompetence is a kind way of saying the tsar lost control of his country. Lenin took power from the provisional government not the tsar. The people were dissastified enough to ask the tsar to convert to a constitutional monarchy which he failed to up hold. They were then upset enough to set up a provisional government. The bolsheviks headed by lenin then took power from the provisional government by force because they were going to loseby a vote to the mensheviks, another socialist group. The masses did not rise up aganst the bolsheviks. They did however rise up to fight the white army and its foreign allies. Its not by accident that a trained and established army lost to a rag tag group of workers, peasants, and untrained revolutionaries. You are dead wrong on the people's dissatisfaction to start the civil war, people felt very strongly about it. There are ofen stories of brothers fighting on either side, no one forces you to do so. Its a tragic time, but you guys are trying to paint everything soviet with a broad brush of negativity cuz it fits your narrative. Read a history book and you will find that times under the tsar were shitty, after the civil war not so much.

Dude WTF?

...

No, you dont. You did a really bad job the first time, which is why my answers are so extensive. You just explain what I write or make some horribly incorrect statement. I think you are an egnlish teacher tht desperately wants to switch to history but hates reading nonfiction.

>So there is no point in trying to solidify your argument with sources? It only seems like the logical thing to do if there is solid evidence out there that you are right.
I already explained that sources are not given in this forum. He did not ask for any or provide any so why would I waste my time. You can check my facts if you like. There is hardly any solid evidence in the humanities anyway, a lot of it is inference which is subjective.
>So you just toss the concept of "burden of evidence" aside because you can get away with it on an anonymous forum, knowing there arent any rules for or against this concept. Slipping in between the cracks just because you are anonymous doesn't make you a very great debator, especially when empiracle evidence can be readily found an presented.
I didn't realize I was writing a book or participating in a debate competiton. You seem eager for everyone to know you took a debate class once and know how to analyse arguements. Good job. Also you are repeating yourself because this point is the same as the last.
> Again, puting yourself into a race and pretending like you have already won. Just because he isnt an expert on the subject doesnt make him wrong, and using shady dabate tactics to win a debate against people who dont know any better just shines a negative light upon you and puts into question any of the conclusions you make.
You just admitted like you did before that he doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about. When that happens to one party in a debate, it is safe to assume that the other has won. It is you who made this into a contest with you analysis. It is also you who is claiming I am using shady tactics like "logical traps" ooooh logic, very scary. What other shady tactics am I using exactly? These are just regular debate tactics, they arent shady.

Im doing this shit barebones and in the forensic style of rhetoric because pointing out the flaws in appeals to ethos and unfounded conjecture is the foundation of aristotalin debate and i really dont have the patience to type out 3 posts in response to this communist fuckery.
>cuz his opening statement was semantics, what do you want from me? Why are you attacking me cuz he's an idiot.
I want you to stop relying on shady tactics to win arguments online.
>The soviet union did have famines, but... It is very impressive that they USSR accomplished what it did while competing with the west.
Among other things this fails to prove that all of these advances wherent the trend russia was taking anyway and that, given the empiracle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world, Soviet revolution only held them back. Most of these great accomplishments where already a trend of russia, and indeed most of developped society, the Soviet Union just inherited them.
>It is heavly fallicious to imply that I am being fallicious.
Baseless accusation unless you can prove that i would not have any sort of arguments without resorting to pointing out yours (I have already addressed why im going barebones, desu)
>It is very pertinent that Russia was corrupt before the USSR... when it inherits corruption.
You are attempting to mix correlation with causation. You have already said/implied that the Soviet regime was benificial to russains by stating its achievments where due to Soviet influence in your previous post, but when it comes to corruption you are more than happy to say that it was already a trend in Tsarist russia and that the Soviets only inherited the problem. Stick to one story if you want me to take you seriously.

2 mother fucking posts, goddamit.

>Well, why do I have to be the defender of everything the soviet union does in the first place. I am not a stalinist
You have taken up the task, deal with it.
>But to answer your point... [my postion is] that things got better for the vast majority of people under soviet rule, in a way that they would not have under the tsar.
I have addressed your mixing corelation and causation 2 times already, you can make a much more cohesive stance if you could stick to one and make conclusions based off of it.
>Most professors on Russian History would agree with this, there is too much data to say otherwise.
Burden of proof says that you have to back this claim up if you want to keep your arguments from being reduced to conjecture. (althought you really dont care for burden of proof it seems)
>Idk why you are providing often innacurate analysis of my responses instead of provide responses of your own.
Claiming my analysis is "innacurate" would rely on you being able to prove that it is. I am not providinging deliberative rhetoric or anecdotal evidence because i have taken it upon myself to stay purely forensic about what you have to say lest i be dragged down to flingging insults and memes like these things always end up being.
>I am not here to rewrite history or defend lenin... but you guys are trying to paint everything soviet with a broad brush of negativity cuz it fits your narrative.
There is so much emotional appeal, analogy and unprovable statements here i can only sum it up as an minefield of loaded questions and strawmen. Not to be confronted directly, but addressed as in poor taste.
>Read a history book and you will find that times under the tsar were shitty, after the civil war not so much.
Circular reasoning. You heavily imply that i have am not up to date on the history of russia simply because i have not reached the same conclusions as you did when you read up on them.

Not him but I've heard even intellectual people say that Stalin was the "gravedigger of communism" because he made it such an unappealing system.

So it turns out you dont know what the fuck you are talking about
>I want you to stop relying on shady tactics to win arguments online.
You have yet to point out these shady tactics
>Among other things this fails to prove that all of these advances wherent the trend russia was taking anyway and that, given the empiracle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world, Soviet revolution only held them back. Most of these great accomplishments where already a trend of russia, and indeed most of developped society, the Soviet Union just inherited them.
The empiricle evidence of the advancement of the 1st world isnt empirical evidence at all. Russia was behind the times, 2nd to last to industrialize next to japan compared to the west. You are flat out wrong on the point that the accomplishments of the USSR were already a trend. There are no credible literary sources that point this out, the fact that the US was behind on some of the social issues that the USSR had establshed unerlines the fact that a backward country like Russia did not have those ideas trending at the time. This point of yours truely shows that you know very little about revolutionary Russia and I suggest you read up on it. This is not a debated point in academic circles.
>You are attempting to mix correlation with causation. You have already said/implied that the Soviet regime was benificial to russains by stating its achievments where due to Soviet influence in your previous post, but when it comes to corruption you are more than happy to say that it was already a trend in Tsarist russia and that the Soviets only inherited the problem. Stick to one story if you want me to take you seriously.
You do understand that it is the same country with a new government right? So there is a baseline state. They failed at eradicating the corruption and succeeded at advancing literacy for example. Why is this so hard to understand. Corruption is very difficult to get rid of which is why I brought it up.

>I have addressed your mixing corelation and causation 2 times already, you can make a much more cohesive stance if you could stick to one and make conclusions based off of it.
Justbecause you say it does not mean its true. I am obviousy arguing that it is causation. Because it did not exist before, the USSR implemented policy, then it happened. To argue that it is correlation is baseless and idiotic as there is no reason to indcate that it is.This is some weird misinformation tactic that you are using, which benefits no one cuz only u and I are reading this bullshit.
> Burden of proof
we have been over this 3 times. This is not the correct forum to provide sources in. Everything on this board is conjecture you retard, as is most of the humanities. Its not that i dont care about sources, its that there is no point. To me we are talking and you keep asking me which page of which book I read this in. If this was a debate tournament, or a paper, or a thesis, I would have those for you but it would take too much time to find sources for all the topics we are covering. I can list books for you if you like, but you wont check, so what it the point exactly aside from you wasting my time.
> innacurate analysis
I think it is self evident by my responses. Just because you are being autisticly forensic does not mean you are not inaccurate
> here is so much emotional appeal, analogy and unprovable statements here i can only sum it up as an minefield of loaded questions and strawmen. Not to be confronted directly, but addressed as in poor taste.
There is no appeal here at all you fool. We have already establshed that the statements here are unprovable, you are being repetative for no reason. There was no loaded question, you are using buzz words at this point. Pretty pathetic. Its not even really a strawman to be honest. You just like to sound smart but you dont know wtf you are talking about.
>Cicular reasoning
Its not. You arent up on Rus his cuz ur facts are false.

>This point of yours truly shows that you know very little about revolutionary Russia and I suggest you read up on it.

Oh really now? would you care to point me to some sources that back up your position that Soviet advances where due to their own inherent competency as opposed to the self-evident nature of the trends being made in society in that point? Disproving the idea of them riding on the benefits of an advancing global society is critical to this assignment.

>Mi-8
Are Pinochet memers really this dumb?

>famine happens in ukraine as is every so often in a near post-feudal society
>A foreign power which used to be your imperial protectorate and authority tells you to hand over all your grain in the middle of a famine
>Kulaks (which is extremely arbitary) collectively decide to burn all their grain instead of ship it to a foreign power who doesn't need it while their in the middle of a crisis???
>Ukranian which hunt begins to solidify soviet power in the region

b-but it wasnt imperialism and deliberately removing the workers produce because I dont want it to be.

>dont give working class people control of the goverment
wait what? Do you know what communism is? Christ you can literally break it down into "the dictatorship of the polteriat" instead of the bourgeois, are you retarded?
What do you think revolutionary workers councils are?

>reeeeee the cia are liars and never tell the truth! Exept when it turned out they werent lying about cambodia or the USSR even a little.

They were actually true and their reports got blown out of proportion. Woops