The gulag archipelago

You're an idiot, both of those examples fall under socialism. Private for-profit ownership with disregard for equity isn't possible in socialism.

>anarchy and socialism are compatible
Uhh okay..

jew

You know that the central battle on the left is between centralized and decentralized planning right? This is basic shit dude. Like google the Spanish Revolution. I used to hate Leftism too when I thought it was about le Big Brother and speech codes and shit, it's all propaganda though.

Ethnically I'm Lithuanian and Bohemian. You're indistinguishable from an SJW to everyone but yourself.

After reading this fatwa I hate the people of the book now *bombs synagogue*

>I used to hate Leftism too when I thought it was about le Big Brother and speech codes and shit, it's all propaganda though.
Hahaha what? Every single "leftist" country from the Soviets over the Chinese up to Venezuela now has a "Big Brother" and speech codes. You leftists are fucking insane.

>central battle on the left is between centralized and decentralized planning right?
Literally no side of the left allows for a man to have a great idea, take out a loan, start a company, hold 100% of the shares, emply 10 people for a mediocre but acceptable wage and reap the benefits of his talents. And if that's not allowed, it's obvious where that economy is going to go, 100% of the time.

socialism is the means, communism is the end. try again.
>Private for-profit ownership with disregard for equity isn't possible in socialism.
Are you retarded?

>socialism is the means, communism is the end. try again.
But that's wrong. Commnism is a step up but not fundamentally different. The latter mostly refers to whether the workers themselves are the owners.
>Are you retarded?
I'll listen if you have anything to say; don't be surprised no one takes you seriously if this is all you add to a discussion.

>Hahaha what? Every single "leftist" country from the Soviets over the Chinese up to Venezuela now has a "Big Brother" and speech codes.
total freedom of speech only exists in America, it's foreign to every other country (this is one of the few things the Founding Fathers got right). But regardless of that what you just said is straight-up untrue. Look at Norway. Unless you're calling for the butchering of a specific ethnicity you'll be fine.
>you leftists are crazy
StefanMolyneuxdxplainshowfemaleliteracyisafeministconspiracy.png
>Literally no side of the left allows for a man to have a great idea, take out a loan, start a company, hold 100% of the shares, emply 10 people for a mediocre but acceptable wage and reap the benefits of his talents. And if that's not allowed, it's obvious where that economy is going to go, 100% of the time.
Right because the employees are being fucked in that scenario. If the guy's idea is any good he'd convince his local community to fund it in a socialist scenario, so there's still a corollary. Let's also keep in mind that the economy is a meme. It's not real. Material goods are real. Work is real. GDP is just casuistry. Canada's GDP is tiny compared to America's, but their people still live better than ours. Obviously socialism isn't gonna work if examined under a capitalist paradigm.

>But that's wrong. Commnism is a step up but not fundamentally different.
Not really, socialism varies and doesn't necessarily entail shared means of production.
>I'll listen if you have anything to say; don't be surprised no one takes you seriously if this is all you add to a discussion.
It was a dumb thing to say.

>normie tongue
>normie
you are a moron

>you are the REAL fascist!
>you are the REAL sjw!

you do realize that literally noone not even the most diehard "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right say it" libertarian wants their political opponents to be in power

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Maybe look it up before you try to shit on people

>cites dictionary
Are you really that dumb?
Go read the wiki article if you're really that stupid and desperate.

?!
We seem to disagree what socialist countries are.
I'll grant you that Norway has tiny socialist elements because they have the luxury of putting up a public trust fund based on private oil profits but beyond that Norway is as capitalist as it gets. Please tell me which countries in the present or past you consider socialist.

>he's in the green quadrant

>How dare you use a dictionary to look at the meaning of a word!
Uhh okay..
>Wikipedia:
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production
Woops still proves you wrong
Where do you want me to look it up next?

A few weeks ago I met a 45 year-old Swedish security guard who couldn't stop telling me about how the "snowflakes" were ruining his country. He must have used the word "triggered" at least twice for every year he'd been alive. (This encounter also made me realize that being on here made me pretty conversant in far-right conspiracy-theories. I was asking him about pizza gate and shit. He probably thought I was one of his.) The point of this is that the guy I was talking too had no idea what Veeky Forums was. He got all this from Facebook.
I'm just saying the pathology is the same.

>it's a fictionalized report from an interested party (and the most exagerated at that) on Stalinism

Not to sound like an apologist, but the thing is next to making a short story about how SS generals did BDSM to each other to compensate for their unpure ancestry. Read the NKVD reports.

Why don't I use the dictionary to teach me about Freud when I look psychology up? Because I'm not a retarded person.

Try reading the article you in-bred fucktard or at least skim it it won't take more than 20 seconds to realize you're dumb as shit.

so you are just saying what I'm saying?

also, virtually everyone falls under that same pathology yourself included m8

That test's designed to make anybody who isn't in the green seem like a sociopath. 8values is better.

You realise that dictionary's only job is to look at the most widespread consensus and then to shorten it, right?
Are you trying to tell me the dictionary is just plain wrong in it's understanding of socialism?
The wiki passage I quoted alone has 10 footnotes affirming what's in the dictionary too.

But they are all wrong and it's YOU who is right about socialism?
Your kind never ceases to amaze me. Quick, throw some more angry results at it.

I resent 8values because they called me a neocon even though I'm against corporate donorship, excessive lobbying and the cancerous overgrowth of the military industrial complex >:(

i just believe in a strong military

You're right the dictionary tries to give the most simple meaning with no nuance whatsoever. How that's supposed to support your argument I have no idea how. Are you really this stupid?

>But they are all wrong and it's YOU who is right about socialism?
Yes I'm just giving my opinion over here, how fucking dumb are you?
If you skim down to the 3rd paragraph you'll see
>The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s and of a general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[13]
>In addition to the debate over markets and planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism

Please castrate yourself so you never reproduce.

Spoiler: All of these tests are absolutely retarded and if it didn't come out so officially looking but was a human processing your answers, you'd regard it as the shit it is

Psychologists have needed decades to make even the most simple of standardized tests worth something yet people will swallow this shit that spawns monthly.

The dictionary reduces it so the smallest common denominator which is SOCIAL OWNERSHIP.

Now even the example you use to prove me wrong because of how diverse socialism is says the common denominator is SOCIAL OWNERSHIP.

I understand that your ego won't allow you to just say "alright sorry I got that wrong" but I get sad at the shell of a person sitting behind your screen unable to admit the smallest mistakes because your narcissism would turn inward and devour your.

>But that's wrong. Commnism is a step up but not fundamentally different. The latter mostly refers to whether the workers themselves are the owners.
Lenin in State and the Revolution says that the difference between socialism and communism is the kind of ownership:

In socialism, the means of production are socially owned, but the property itself is private. An individual works for the just ammount of money for which he works in context. There is a form of state and that is one that reppresses the bourgeois.

Communism is the end goal, so to speak, It's an state of extreme wealth in which individuals can work according to their abilities and take according to their needs, without an state (essentially, what anarchists strove for in the times of Lenin, without the reppresive methods of socialism). Of course, Lenin mentions this as an absolute end goal to humanity itself, and claims that no one can know when it will happen (if ever, I may add).

Of course, Lenin's writings are 100 years old by now, and are based around his reading of Marx' Critique to the Gotha Proggramme, but it's good to see why every communist country is called a "Popular Democracy".

Also, mostly, from both sides, when people are talking about communism or socialism, they tend to not have read any thing on the subject matter but what they want to believe.

>this book

it's a series of three volumes, pleb

I know, but political compass memes are still hilarious

Don't know why you're directing that at me - that's literally what I said until you replace Lenin's words with your own interpreation.

The difference between socialism and communism is indeed the kind of ownership, like you say. Socialism = social ownership but not necessarily in the hands of the workers, i.e. there can still be an organisation (like the government) who controls it and pays wages. Communism = the country is ready to abolish this last step too and hand property directly to the workers, the end goal and last step in social ownership.
Communism is the utopia, but unfortunately ;^) we never get there and it always ends in the government staying in control. Weird how that happens.
It's still just a gradual progression in the kind of ownership.

Ivan Denisovich is better

Ah, just trying to clarify in this shitshow about dictionary and no-yous.

I mean I'll be happy if that guy gets over himself and agrees with you but he still has trouble admitting that socialism means social ownership lmao.

It's like a friendly drunk russian telling you what happened at the bar. Might not be 100% accurate, but I doubt he's anything other than authentic. My copy looks exactly like that

I mean the good thing is that everything he describes is established beyond doubt through other sources so there's no reason to believe he made it all up, even if he should have embellished something.

My dad (62) has a framed copy of the Solzhenitsyn Time Magazine cover. It was hanging in our basement for years and years. My sister and I were always totally creeped out by it as kids, he looked scary and the magazine cover was old and faded.

I recently helped my parents move out of their house as they prepare for retirement and I found the Time cover again. My dad told me I could have it.

Anyway, never read any of Solzhenitsyn. I asked my dad about him and he had only the foggiest idea of who he was, but he made some kind of impact on my dad during his days as an english student in college.

I couldn't bear to tell him that Solzhenitsyn was now a meme for frogposters.

Kill yourself

thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/200-years-together.pdf

banned books dot pee dee eff

>his book about Russian Jews was banned in America

really heats up the brainpan

I want this on my shelf

>the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership,
are you illiterate or a retarded person?

i lolled

>posting nabokov
>an anti-communist who supported the vietnam war and personally thanked president johnson

>book about prisons made by a political leader disproves the use of historical materialism

really made the ol' neurons fire

>Russians being savages offers us information on the correctness or incorrectness of Marx
Really boggles the noggin

should I just read the abridged version or should I shell out 100 bucks for each separate volume?

Hey, can someone else please start bumping the thread, my dad gets angry if I stay up too late, thanks.

>Stalinism is comparable to Hitlerism
Of course, weren't both of them totalitarian dictators and mass murderers on a historical scale?

Hitler single-handedly started WW2 which resulted in dozens of millions of deaths only because of his purely evil nationalistic beliefs.

Also he wanted to promote his racist beliefs towards the masses, meaning to eventually convince everyone that genocide is the way to go (and his influence is still very palpable in the far right today, whereas barely any leftists actually use Stalin as an example). He didn't even need to be hypocritical, he only hid some details from the people and was openly proud about the rest. Hitler wasn't just a mass-murder, he was dragging his entire country and the world into becoming mass-murderers.

That's why you can't compare those two. Stalin did what he had to do to remain in power, which every leader from the beginning of civilization has done. His methods are of course extremely horrific, but one can understand where they stemmed from. But in the case of Hitler it is astonishing how such a person could rise to power in modern Europe and in one of its most cultured countries.

Good post overall but it's clear you know nothing about the nature of Stalinist atrocities.

>Stalinist atrocities

Post proofs.

>muh 100 million kulaks

I d e o l o g y

The economy being a meme only ceases to matter if the entire world turns communist you utter dolt. You still need to maintain economic strength to maintain purchasing power on the global market so your people don't starve because the government can't provide for them. This is the reason why China, for example adopted a mixed model.

Also
>if the idea was good he would convince the community to fund it

Anything at all innovative has seemed retarded to begin with. In any sort of democratic workers council situation people will be hesistant to go in on investments because they will inevitably be investing a larger share of their own wealth. Such innovation requires accumulation of capital that only governments or large bodies of capital can provide.

Sorry but without taking either side, as a German, I will tell you you know absolutely nothing about the history of this country and Hitler's rise to power so please refrain from making stupid posts like that.

You're equally misinformed about the Soviet Union too, the entire point of OP's book is to show how the "methods" started before Stalin and were not just repression to stay in power.

Please read some books.

Here's a good primer.

>he actually thinks genocide denying Communist revisionists will ever read a book critical of their Dear Leader

I think revisionist scum like you belong in a gulag.

Do I have to know about Germany to know that Hitler started WW2 and used racist propaganda to win the people over?

>the entire point of OP's book is to show how the "methods" started before Stalin and were not just repression to stay in power
So if a book says so, then it must be the case, right? Why don't you prove me wrong?

The way I see it, every single Soviet who was not in the Communist Party hated the shit out of Stalin, so the noisier ones had to have been punished. But how the fuck do you explain this? youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvafKSJ1ls&t=216s

>total freedom of speech only exists in America
Top fucking kek I'm saddened that this has 2 replies and the repliers didn't just stop reading there and haven't just moved on to do something more productive with their time.

>Do I have to know about Germany to know that Hitler started WW2 and used racist propaganda to win the people over?
It would certainly help you not look stupid in the eyes of a German who does know the history and understands factors like preexisting antisemitism, the effect of the treaty of Versailles, the interests of the industrious elite helping Hitler, the gamble that the politicians putting Hitler into power took and lost, the brutal oppression of any opposition, and so on.
Foreigners predicted right after the treaty of Versailles that Germany would inevitably start a war because of it - don't act like everything was fine until Hitler came along, you look like an idiot.

>Yeah okay so this book explains something but that doesn't mean I can't just say it's wrong because I want it to be wrong
Wow what a pleasure to debate with you.
There is evidence that repression started before Stalin, you are free to deny that but again, you will look like an idiot.

>mentality
>intellectual condition

An ad hominem lecture... I'm actually mad you didn't even try.

There's nothing to deny because nothing was actually presented.

>There's nothing to deny because nothing was actually presented.
>There is absolutely zero evidence of anyone dying under Stalin or Mao
lul modern communists crack me up

>Hitler started WW2
Whew, lad.

>Wow what a pleasure to debate with you
Lol you think we are debating? I made a point and you just called me an idiot without bringing any counterarguments. You didn't even understand what I said, you just spouted a few words that you keep in your "red-pill" collection.

I guess this board really is lost. The new wave of /pol/ has taken over and they are not even ironic anymore.

>Surely attacking the publisher's blurb on the cover of a book will demonstrate that I am above reading anything criticial to my pre-conceived notions of Stalinism!

Finished the second volume today. Definitely worth reading. And if it didn't destroy marxism, it is because
1) very few people know about it
2) you'll get the eternal catchphrase that it was not real™ communism

No, I called you an idiot after giving you my arguments for why it was more complex than just Hitler telling peaceful people "uh racism and stuff let's war".
You really are not as smart as you think you are, sorry.

> I doubt he's anything other than authentic
Speaking from my experience with Russians, they like pretending to be kind simpletons when you're looking at them, but as soon as you turn away, they're the quickest to stab you in the back.

> being this reactionary
>>>/gulag/

>Economically communist
>Likes civil liberties

Maybe when you grow up you'll realise that these things aren't compatible

> the entire point of OP's book is to show how the "methods" started before Stalin and were not just repression to stay in power
Solzhenitsyn was a clearly schizophrenic nationalist with incredibly skewed priorities as to what was good for Russia and Russians who was systematically accused of outright lying by other anti-Stalinist writers who passed through the gulags. Not saying that Stalin was a saint, but Solzhenitsyn is out there among the worst sources to base one's opinion on the Soviet Union on.

> political freedom is only possible when you have no say over how your company works and have no rights as a worker whatsoever
Sure thing, friendo.

>he wants a gulag without a state
dude you are fucking retarded

Does anyone know where this sudden revival of pro-soviet sentiment has come from? I'm seeing it everything.

No, I'm saying that civil liberties will cease to exist under the kind of government and regulations that will make the economic freedom you communists speak of possible.

> bigger pensions means gulag
Blackwhite classique.
> I'm seeing it everything.
You're just suffering from persecution complex, friendo.
> civil liberties will cease to exist under the kind of government and regulations that will make the economic freedom you communists speak of possible
Let me guess, because of le human nature meme? Every single time I ask a rightist to explain to me exactly how would that happen, you cunts always find a reason to change the subject. Is saying "I just want to own a personal yacht and see other people not have one" that hard?

Gas yourself faggot

> waaaah, waaaah

>I will tell you you know absolutely nothing about the history of this country and Hitler's rise to power
Ok then, tell me, let me see what you've got.
>You're equally misinformed about the Soviet Union too
Ookay, how so? When are the concrete arguments rolling in?
>the entire point of OP's book is to show how the "methods" started before Stalin and were not just repression to stay in power.
This one comes somewhat close, but it's not your argument and it's not related to what I was saying about Hitler being worse than Stalin

>factors like preexisting antisemitism, the effect of the treaty of Versailles, the interests of the industrious elite helping Hitler, the gamble that the politicians putting Hitler into power took and lost, the brutal oppression of any opposition, and so on.
This is just a list of events. If you don't attach your interpretation of them it's useless.
>Foreigners predicted right after the treaty of Versailles that Germany would inevitably start a war because of it - don't act like everything was fine until Hitler came along
Of course there were historical circumstances. There always are. But Hitler planned and executed the war. He is as responsible as any other leader in history. Anyway, good job in the argument. Too bad it only addresses half of my point.
>There is evidence that repression started before Stalin, you are free to deny that but again, you will look like an idiot.
There is evidence somewhere but you don't bring it and if I don't believe it I am an idiot. Got it.

No not fucking human nature you dolt. Because of the essential nature of revolution and the the necessities of consolidating power in a post revolutionary state. You must oppress or risk your state collapsing. Moreover, the accumulation of political power in the hands of a few unchecked individuals inevitable in a postrevolultionary state should be unacceptable to anyone. A few idealogues now have the power of life or death over all citizens. It's unacceptable and highly abuse able, allowing for things like Mao's cultural revolution.

Also, I think your understanding of Marxism is skewed. I can still own and operate a yacht, it is personal property. I can't however force people to work the land and take the fruits of their labour as profit. This is a good thing, and not necessarily a utopian unachievable goal, however I do not think the means of revolution are suited the the ideal end.

I think you have taken me for a right winger. I am not. I am skeptical that communism is the answer, and I have no desire to be "guided into a brighter future" by a vanguard party of intellectuals who think they have the right to decide for the masses.

> I think your understanding of Marxism is skewed
Concern trolling? I'm out, have a nice day.

What do you mean concern trolling?

I don't agree with Marxism, but it is an actual fact that I can accumulate personal property all day long and no one gives a shit. Your argument seemed to imply that.

I was trying to transition into having an actual spirited discussion outside of the previous funposting. But hey, if you're not interested because your ego doesn't like anyone to say that you're not the smartest most knowledgeable little Marxist around perhaps you're not meant for debate.

> I was trying to transition into having an actual spirited discussion
No, you weren't. I'm not here to be your strawman.

Had you replied sincerely I would have had the discussion with you. I am willing to change my mind on Marxism if I can be given a satisfactory answer on how it can be implemented without oppressive dictatorship and violent revolution.

>There is evidence somewhere but you don't bring it and if I don't believe it I am an idiot. Got it.
Sorry, but if you don't know that the oppression had already started under Lenin, there's little point to argue anything with you. You can keep being angry or you can show some humility and accept that you're not very well-read on these topics.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/09gff.htm
>Comrade Fyodorov,
>It is obvious that a whiteguard insurrection is being prepared in Nizhni. ... Organise immediately mass terror, shoot and deport the hundreds of prostitutes who are making drunkards of the soldiers, former officers and the like.
This is literally from Lenin himself.

If you're going to tell me you might be wrong about some stuff and want to learn, I'll show you more arguments. Not gonna waste my time with someone set in their way though.

Not that guy but you misinterpreted the sentence, it says that the common denominator in socialists theories is the social ownership, not that the different types of socialism differs in forms of social ownership.

Looks like you're the retarded one lad

Where does it say that? Quote it faggot.
>Not that guy
You said that you retarded cunt.
If you're not that guy you're still a retarded cunt.

No it's literally a different guy but I'm still here, I just stopped bothering with you when you couldn't understand a simple sentence from wikipedia.

And I was right, since you still don't get it after the guy explained it to you. "Where does it say that" - LITERALLY IN THE SAME SENTENCE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO GAVE THIS SENTENCE. You used it to confirm your viewpoint but it just does the opposite. And I don't have any hope you'll understand that.

The dictionary guy said
>Now even the example you use to prove me wrong because of how diverse socialism is says the common denominator is SOCIAL OWNERSHIP.

You replied
>>the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership,

You fucking misinterpreted it and misquoted it man, now cease your faggotry and admit your mistakes