Reminded that this book is sufficient to debunk communism

Even if Solzheitsyn (or however it's spelled) didn't embellish facts (which he did), it's not sufficient sinceit's just one man's anecdotal experience.

He was there and he was a military officer with knowledge of the stazis prior to his arrest. Who made your gay infographic made by if hes wrong

I thought Putin was a dictator, now hes just one of the people in charge of Russia as on of its' few?

>muh 7 gazillion

Look at this guy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest

Check how many people he think died, he start with 30 million, then he lower to 20 million, then he finishes with 15 million, he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and he has no sources, names or any proof, is just estimatives with range of fucking 15 millions, all that bullshit is just propaganda you should not be stupid enough to buy it.

>sole leader
>barely 5' tall
How do you imagine this?

...

Modern Russia is an oligarchy with Putin as main oligarch on top of the pyramid. It's a weird amalgamation of descendants of old Soviet-era nomenklatura and new money tycoons and oligarchs (many of them former commies who just changed colors overnight) who took advantage of Russia's chaotic state during 90s and got filthy rich through fraudulent privatizations.

>Modern Russia is an oligarchy

Which country is not an Oligarchy?

Fun fact: Gulag was not one place you can see everything from, it was net of labor camps. Since when been military officer makes you expert in prison system? And the cherry on top of the pie, our truthseeker debunked himself in his earlier work "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" portraing gulag as nothing but overglorified penal colony

>whataboutism
Go away Ivan.

lol these roosters itt really are like Holocaust deniers.

Seems pretty reputable, sorry it makes you uncomfortable.

If you were at a gulag after teh great purge and holodmor the rest of the mass killings would be carried out within them. By just knowing the amount of labor camps he would be able to know how many died

No, just no. You really don't understand how it worked.

>By just knowing the amount of labor camps he would be able to know how many died
It wouldn't be hard for you to reprise the calculations?
Also
>holodmor

H denial, there it is.

each camp is by definition part of an average. So youd just have to times the the amount that died at that camp by the amount that existed to get a good estimate
Oh whoops, this is how it worked
>The guy who went inside the camps after a faux-trial was wrong about his fictional piece which literally was just a single day of a fictional, tragi-comedic account of what life in one would be like for him when it was never stated that that character was actually in a 'gulag'.
and
>the great purge and holdomor happend after he was arrested when ukraine had been occupied for a deacede prior to his arrest

>KGB operative

Putin was always merely a paper pusher.

>each camp is by definition part of an average. So youd just have to times the the amount that died at that camp by the amount that existed to get a good estimate

In the camps alone after holodmor around 73 million total died including those taken from the occupied territories

>So youd just have to times the the amount that died at that camp by the amount that existed to get a good estimate
Except you know, in Kamchatka mortality rate was 30% but in Central Russia 2%. We are talking about thousands of camps all over the Soviet Union.

>half of the population
Ever tried to imagine this?

At its very best it only debunk Leninism.

Not an argument.

>73 million
Seems unrealistic, seeing as that would be about half the population.

Not an argument.

ITT: Nazbol fags deny warcrimes and call Putin oppressive because it suits their narrative

they were all there for life, user

>they got tired of killing people after Stalin said death solves all problem

t. Tankie

You forgot to add that Kulaks caused Holodomor, Gulags are propaganda, famines in China were not real, Finland and Poland provoked Soviet Union, Katyn massacre was done by G*rmans, rape of G*rmany didn't happen and that Communism isn't a failure.

3 off the top of my head: Cuba, DPRK, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Not him but it's because the soviet union was not a communist society nor did it try to become one. That much is obvious to anyone who read the manifesto and is knowledgeable about the Soviet Union.

No one's denying the gulags were horrible, but that's no excuse to inflate the death toll thirty times.

>read our propagnda and fanfiction and second hank accounts of the soviet union written by the CPUSA to know it wasnt run by commies

woah oligarchy is kewl

???

Cuba, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are un-ironically the most based, red-pilled nations on the entire planet.

They have completely freed themselves from the bankers and capitalist investors who profit off wars, drug trafficking, sex slavery/sex trafficking, usury and debt.

>Cuba, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are un-ironically the most based, red-pilled nations on the entire planet

JUST

>a work of fiction and hearsay about how prisons suck debunks the entire social system of the country operating them

really, OP? I honestly feel bad for capitalists if this is the best they got.

>everything that goes against my views is fake

Nice delusion, tankie

Reminded that this book is sufficient to debunk capitalism.

>Holocaust deniers
>Hurr how can 6 million have died in the Holocaust just look at these population statistics, also the numbers are always being revised down by the Jew academia why can't they stick to a number
>Trust me it's all in my poorly sourced infograph

>Tankies
>Hurr how can 60 million have died in Stalin's USSR, just look at these population statistics, also the numbers are always being revised down by the capitalist academia why can't they stick to a number
>Trust me it's all in my poorly sourced infograph

Really makes you think

>capitalism is to blame for human nature
not really

it describes human suffering under capitalism

ergo, capitalism is wrong

> no other system has uplifted more people out of poverty than capitalism
BUT LETS TRY COMMINUSIM AGAIN, U GUISE

whataboutism at it's finest

>IT wasn't true communism when millions died, starved to death and sold body parts on the street for food
>I can prevent people participating in markets without using massive violent force, censorship, propaganda and camps
>If I was in Stalin's shoes we would be a united worker by now!

The same delusion, no matter which "intellectual" is enthralled by marx's drivel.

stop deflecting and wrigling about
answer

Not even the same user you originally responded to, but you are a retard, here I'll explain your argument because you clearly don't even understand it and are probably 12.
>Our society has social problems due to hierarchy and conflict
>Our society is capitalist
>((((((MASSIVE LOGICAL LEAP SIMPLIFICATION))))))!
>Therefore it is the capitalist system of markets and property hurting society and must be destroyed!
>((((((PROVIDE NO ALTERNATIVE THAT WORKS UNDER GAME THEORY OR STATE OF NATURE))))))
>Lel marx my man

come on dude.

you are deflecting as well and not answering
> MASSIVE LOGICAL LEAP SIMPLIFICATION
explain how OP isn't doing it as well

Answering what? That shitty worker conditions are ablooblboo and we need to end capitalism?

>Market failure in California because no information or transport networks to stop the arbitrage of the local barons
>wahh arbitrage is mean i can't choose where to go :(((((((

Never mind that historically even the down trodden capitalist worker is infinitely better off then feudalism and relatively better off then the unlucky side of communists.

You are not even responding to arguments and simply engaging in sophistry and reveal yourself as nothing but a charlatan.

>Answering what?
explain how OP is not doing the same massive logical leap simplification as done in

Because the human suffering in the soviet union during that time period was entirely caused by central planning and the realities of trying to implement a communist system?

While grapes of wrath is simply a small regional tragedy that would never occur now in a market economy because information would prevent any land barons profiting to the extent that they did without the aid of state backed monopolies. Which is more and more common in the US.

Too bad replacing the other user's arguments with simpler words to demean him is not an argument either

But now you're just attacking my word usage isntead of actually refuting my points that communism never works without violent dictators, capitalism malfunctions in the grapes of wrath were purely technological, and most of your complaints are attributed to current day fascists who use the state to make structures to protect their holdings from competition?

Literally sophistry. You are not even engaging in rebuttal of any of the points and are simply trying to jerk yourself off.

>Because the human suffering in the soviet union during that time period was entirely caused by central planning and the realities of trying to implement a communist system?
So you are saying central planning was what put the author of the book to "prison camp" and was the source of suffering that he described in his book?

I am not that user you were talking to. But my input to your argument

>implying there are no current monopolies, some aren't even state backed
>current day fascists
Interesting to see the no true captialism argument appear lately

Exactly, why do they need a prison camp? Because people might become political opponents or support market activity, and they caught a whiff and used their planning powers to remove the bad egg. It would happen no matter how you realistically tried to implement a revolution.

>No true capitalism

Its not even that, by definition if a government is providing specific support and protection for a specific firm we are not practicing capitalism. That's like saying a mafia shake down of a street is capitalist because they collect and spend money. If its not voluntary at all levels of the exchange and activity besides basic property rights it ain't capitalism.

>Because people might become political opponents or support market activity, and they caught a whiff and used their planning powers to remove the bad egg. It would happen no matter how you realistically tried to implement a revolution.
you are making a huge logical leap

one can mount the same argument with any idea with exactly the same correlation in between (as in -- zero):

"people might become political opponent of breaking eggs from wider side and then people who argue for breaking eggs from thinner side will put them in camps"

how was central planning exactly the reason of author's book suffering?

What? Are you high?

The central fucking plan of the soviet union was to ensure the socialist worker worked and remained socialist and no political party sprung up to change the system internally.

If you don't have a prison camp or a massive police force, the self interested farmers are going to set up a black market and enjoy a happier wealthy life then their compatriots. So if you don't have a prison camp you can't enforce your centrally planned economy.

Not to mention the sheer inefficiencies of using a centrally planned system caused millions to starve to death in satellite countries and also China, but we like to skim over that one when we call for political revolution against the meanie head capitalist.

you can also read cancer ward from the same author where the evil commies save his life and set him free

>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Too bad the element of voluntary is not necessary for capitalism to have

a) so you are admitting that you are wrong?

central planning is not the reason for that person's suffering because he was not a farmer

b)

> If you don't have a prison camp or a massive police force, the self interested farmers are going to set up a black market

so you are saying prison camps were created entirely for farmers?

> sheer inefficiencies of using a centrally planned system caused millions to starve to death
what does that has anything OP's claim that that particular book is a political treatise meant to disprove communism as a whole

Ah yes i should have qualified with free market capitalism but I thought that was obvious but since you want to engage in further sophistry and word weaseling instead of actually writing a coherent rebuttal i will amuse you.

Heres a little check list for you
>Firms have laws that specifically empower their market share and limit market share of competition
>Firms use government enforcement and litigation to compete with firms outside of the market structure in predatory fashion

When these two things happen you no longer get a meritocracy system and people lose wealth and opportunity compared to an actual free market system.

>because i said farmers as an example i meant only farmers

Holy fuck you are retarded, actual fucking 70IQ. No any fucking worker gets sent to the camps and any fucking worker will participate in the black market for benefit.

Anyways I am done with you two dullards as your arguments have been word picking instead of actual any coherent rebuttal of any point whatsoever. They certainly teach Marxists how to say literally fucking nothing, and pretend to not know how to read English to obfuscate the impossible utopian retard nature of their proposed society that falls down once shown a simple prisoners dilemma chart.

> impotent insults after her argument collapses at the simplest request to explain her leaps of logic
okay

i am not even a '''communist''' or whatever label you want to call me so that your understanding of the world woven of nothing but memes stays static

>denounces others for indulging in sophistry
>still trying to talk about 'free market' capitalism not actual capitalism
Wew lads.

>When these two things happen you no longer get a meritocracy system and people lose wealth and opportunity compared to an actual free market system.
It is almost as if capital's tendency to acculmalte itself is unmeritocratic in the first place and leads to monopolies... Really makes me think

What leap of fucking logic? You literally have not stated it and simply criticize word choice and definitions. In order for me to rebutt your point you must state it and you have done so in any fashion.

>Muh capital accumulation
>Muh monopolies price gouging slightly and only maintainable with state help is worse then creating a system of gulags to make things more "equal" which is just codeword for i want rich people's stuff and their kids don't deserve it

>What leap of fucking logic?

explain how
is not exactly the same
> MASSIVE LOGICAL LEAP SIMPLIFICATION
as one in original post of this thread

>>Muh monopolies price gouging slightly and only maintainable with state help is worse then creating a system of gulags to make things more "equal" which is just codeword for i want rich people's stuff and their kids don't deserve it
>whines about sophistry in others
>red baiting
>whataboutism
You are the gift that keeps on giving

Because years of economics, game theory, basic analysis of human nature, and fucking dismantled the idea of a centrally planned economy decades ago. Everyone will aim to cheat, you can only stop cheaters with violence, violence leads to a impoverished society. The Gulag Archipelago simply relays that violence and is a sufficent rebuttal.

Meanwhile the fuckers in grapes went there desperate for work, found some farms they couldn't live off of because of price gouging that existed purely because the market system was not functioning and did not have the requsitie flows of information. If a rich man in New York knew there was a bunch of price gougers in California they could simply use some capital to undercut and reap massive profits off of the massive demand. And that would continue until reasonable prices resumed. Technology obsoletes this concern.

You still have no actual counter argument.

Why do I have to explain a fucking econ textbook to you fucks for you to even begin to discuss coherently? Because you haven't even read one.

The most common sentence was 5-10 years.

Does not excuse the immorality and waste of prison camps or central planning. You can argue technicalities but fundamentally Communism is immoral on a basic level because of the NAP and the definitions of greater good being arbitrarily defined by bureaucrats.

>because the market system was not functioning
so you are saying

it was not a true capitalism?..

No I was saying the market system, which is a game played by people in order to distribute wealth and engage in activity was undergoing a market failure because of a lack of technology and information. If the technology of today and thus information networks existed the events in Grapes would have been impossible under the same laws as they had then. Hell the problem was probably fixed a year or two after the book.

>You still have no actual counter argument
Because you haven't provided one either, instead indulging in no true capitalism, red baiting and whataboutism

>Because you haven't even read one.
Demeaning my intelligence is unfortunately not an argument either

I'm not a fan of communism, especially in its Stalinist or Leninist form. Soviet Union was a terrible oppressive empire.

And yet monopolies still exist today despite having the technology

>Buzz word summaries

I have stated repeatedly the failures of central planning under game theory, and the solution of a functioning market to the problems in Grapes, yet you simply refuse to read English and spout memes. You have yet to actually say anything of meaning.

Either geographically which happens regardless because of the nature of the product or using state power to protect the monopoly. Certain products benefit from state provision as public goods but 99% of everything is better provided in a functioning free market that we do not enjoy.

opensecrets.org/lobby/clientbills.php?id=D000000367&year=2017

There is nothing free, market, or capitalist about our current situation.

okay so you are saying because the problem depicted in the book was eliminated since and happened only in very isolated place it cannot be considered as '''rebuttal''' to capitalism?

am i understanding you right?

Yes in fact it cannot rebut capitalism or its benefits as an ideology. I apparently had to restate this shit a million times because arbitrage is a concept that escapes the common mind.

Don't forget. Either learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

>what is summer of love
>what is Luxottica

And as already stated, the situation is capitalistic coz private property still exist. Trying to introduce 'free market' into it doesn't make it any less capitalistic. Whining about it not being free market capitalism is just shifting the goalposts

>Yes
can you explain how book in original post supposed to rebut communism considering Gulag system was completely dismantled in 60s and the practice was officially condemned

when Gulag (or other similar work camps in Siberia) existed book works perfectly to illustrate the wrongness of communism?

but then USSR dismantles the Gulag and condemns the practice of political prosecution -- how can that book still work as rebuttal to existence of that state?

Rather then shifting goal posts it is simply relating to you the economic solution practiced and known for years for the so called problems of capital accumulation you whine about.

Because it doesn't change the underlying fact violent suppression is required to maintain a centrally planned economy and that only under a relaxation into various "soft market" systems was the soviet union even able to continue functioning during the cold war.

So you have effectively have no argument? Explaining how such problems arises in capitalism doesn't suddenly makes those problems go away.

No, but it provides a clear simple and easy solution as opposed to destroying private property? Simple maintain the rules of the market game so they are fair and provide goods of certain types through the state and all problems that people attribute are basically solved. The problems we enjoy today are not endemic of a system of thought but violent power structures.

>only under a relaxation into various "soft market" systems was the soviet union even able to continue functioning during the cold war.
explain

i only know one time USSR dabbled in "soft market" and it was during New Economic Policy in 20s

Explain how Khruschev or Brezhnev's rules were soft market

>Because it doesn't change the underlying fact violent suppression is required to maintain a centrally planned economy
So communism that is inherently based on violence is bad but violence that still happens in the absence of communism is not that bad?

Explain.

The book illustrates two points, one that in order to be maintained communism requires some form of violent suppression extreme or otherwise. That violent suppression is invariably immoral, not to mention all the social suppression. Those two points that suppression is necessary, and suppression is immoral refutes communism.

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900922&slug=1094485

Violence in general is bad but communism is bad because it is inherently violent and additionally provides no actual benefits.

That was already done in the New Deal and yet new monopolies arises. If your only solution is to prevent capital from reaching its intended destination than you might as well be fighting against capitalism itself

No it wasn't done at all, the new monopolies lobbied the governments, received new protections from competitors and aggregated wealth. Even with this protection these monopolies fold, see Microsoft's tech domination now long gone. The state must work constantly to maintain a working market, this usually doesn't happen as it is purchased by monopoly interests for protections. Centrally planning gives you the exact same set of problems just instead of CEOs you get bureaucrats deciding in rooms every aspect or how a person gets fucked over and how they can use the state to enrich themselves like kings.