|
Deimus posted:The capitalist faction hated mao and the maoists and said things that were later proven false about the period. Weird I know. lol mao did nothing wrong the chinese bourgeoisie literally conspired to make him look bad
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Deimus posted:Lets assume the 'Black Book of Communism' hasn't been debunked multiple times and was right, you'd have to be incredibly disingenuous to assume that famines only happen in communist countries and not (developing) 3rd world countries in general, all the time, and try to make an ideological point of it. Not to defend the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, but even ascribing the most benign motives to all involved, Mao's government played a substantial role in exacerbating the famine that coincided with the GLF. When vast numbers of people are dying of hunger and your nation is exporting foodstuffs for economic reasons, "poo poo happens" doesn't really constitute a defense -- I'm looking at you, Lord John Russell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Mao did some bad things and was also kinda regressive later in life. So no I didn't say that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Mao did some bad things and was also kinda regressive later in life. so you're saying that the millions of victims of maos policies didn't happen so kinda like holodomor and holocaust denial huh
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Not to defend the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, but even ascribing the most benign motives to all involved, Mao's government played a substantial role in exacerbating the famine that coincided with the GLF. When vast numbers of people are dying of hunger and your nation is exporting foodstuffs for economic reasons, "poo poo happens" doesn't really constitute a defense -- I'm looking at you, Lord John Russell. Well, i'm obviously not an expert and I don't want to pretend I am. But a lot of the information I've received comes from this if anyone is interested in learning about the period. If anyone wants to correct this article i'm willing to admit it's wrong. http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Well, i'm obviously not an expert and I don't want to pretend I am. But a lot of the information I've received comes from this if anyone is interested in learning about the period. If anyone wants to correct this article i'm willing to admit it's wrong. we can start with the basics, deimus. have you considered that a self professed independent socialist magazine might not be an impartial source, especially when it contradicts the vast majority of established scholarly work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Only socialist publications should be trusted, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
anyhow I'm glad we've managed to establish that you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any atrocious dictator provided he self identifies the correct way
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:we can start with the basics, deimus. have you considered that a self professed independent socialist magazine might not be an impartial source, especially when it contradicts the vast majority of established scholarly work? He links his sources.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Deimus posted:He links his sources. a study published in the journal of Chinese physics B also links its sources, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bother debunking it if a good study on a similar topic already says the opposite in Nature
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:if the whole point of a socialist revolution is to destroy the capitalist class and put their accumulated resources to use for the larger populace, don't be surprised when that exact thing happens This has never happened, ever. Instead, the socialist revolution puts the capitalist class's accumulated resources to use for the people running the revolution and their cronies, while everyone else has to take their table scraps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
You exist in another entirely different dimension of history, troika. Please stay woke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Deimus posted:Well, i'm obviously not an expert and I don't want to pretend I am. But a lot of the information I've received comes from this if anyone is interested in learning about the period. If anyone wants to correct this article i'm willing to admit it's wrong. I remember reading that when HE last posted it. It's not great. The thesis is as follows: you can't trust Western accounts of the famine due to pervasive anticommunism, and you can't trust Chinese accounts of the famine due to pervasive anti-Chairman Maoism. Then Ball uses stupid dreck like this: quote:The relative sympathy of the peasants for Mao when recalling the Great Leap Forward must call into question the demographic evidence that indicates that tens of millions of them starved to death at this time. as part of a general strategy of obfuscation, all to argue that maybe the Great Chinese Famine wasn't great after all. Ehhhhhh. Note that the author himself has a clear agenda: to exculpate Mao. His is the only agenda that he doesn't render a scholar untrustworthy, his carefully curated collection of figures and anecdotes the only ones that are above suspicion. You wanna find that compelling, go ahead, but this reads a lot like Grover Furr to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Note that the author himself has a clear agenda: to exculpate Mao. His is the only agenda that he doesn't render a scholar untrustworthy, his carefully curated collection of figures and anecdotes the only ones that are above suspicion. Yeah the authors agenda could get annoying I get it. But I thought the article more made the point that the commonly accepted view of the period by 'Hungry Ghosts' and 'Thirty Years in the Countryside' etc. came from questionable, inauthentic source that the party later abided by. Deimus has issued a correction as of 05:25 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:"Some people in this country are more than one missed lunch away from starving to death, what a victory for socialism" loving hell man Growing up in West Bengal India a state that was run into the ground by 50+ years of communist bullshit permanently crippled my ability to tolerate armchair "marxists" from western countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Haha Castro, man... I can't believe it! What a guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Michael Bayleaf posted:Haha Castro, man... I can't believe it! What a guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
I'm here to post some relevant tweets that someone else has probably already posted. https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa/status/802627744915857408 https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/802663633167810560 https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/802555870576050176
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:what's wrong with being a capitalist exactly 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:yep, that's a common thread. the universally stunning economic achievements of those countries is a big part of why i'm a drat dirty red and want to see what kind of insane futuretech would come out of a socialist state with the united states' economy Central planning was great for building heavy industry, roads and steel mills. It was absolutely awful for developing technology, the Eastern Block lost its steam that demonstrated itself in the space race as its administrative apparatus ossified and more complex technologies required more structured and differentiated institutions, in its latter days the USSR relied on reverse engineering for anything that wasn't military hardware. All consumer electronics was based around components stolen wholesale from Western manufacturers, and even then people were willing to pay a premium for Western imports because the domestic substitutes were poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
FieryBalrog posted:loving hell man listen guy we're gonna try a lttle fascism and then we're gonna try a little communism and u can't stop us USA #1!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:listen guy we're gonna try a lttle fascism and then we're gonna quietly sweep it under the rug and u can't stop us USA #1!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:did somebody force the soviets to occupy all of these countries they didn't need and enter a dick measuring contest with the previously friendly (and allied) west or something I did
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Central planning was great for building heavy industry, roads and steel mills. It was absolutely awful for developing technology What do you mean? The government funded public sector is where almost any technology that has a significant impact is developed. In the US as well. The High-tech industry revolution of the 70s to the Bio-genetic industry stuff now. Deimus has issued a correction as of 11:14 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Deimus posted:What do you mean? The government funded public sector is where almost any technology that has a significant impact is developed. In the US as well. The High-tech industry revolution of the 70s to the Bio-genetic industry stuff now. There's a good article about the workings of Soviet innovation and industry: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12814.html Basically, there is a couple of points: - central planning stifled research in areas that were not at the forefront of government interest at the time, as there was no way to procure funding outside central authorities, and those followed rigid plans - manufacturing output was judged based on quantity, not on consumer satisfaction or product quality. management was disincentivized from cooperating with scientific institutions on this basis, as introducing change into the manufacturing process would be a threat to fulfilling the plan - furthermore the Soviet design of institutions was such that various areas of research were highly compartmentalized and structured, and so was manufacturing, which was strictly separated from research. Therefore various aspects of the R&D process were separated into individually planned and executed projects which created bottlenecks - because of a top down scheme of delivering products on a market, funds intended for innovation were often misappropriated since consumer satisfaction and actual performance of products were not sufficiently taken into account in performance evaluation of state enterprises - research and design institutes suffered from poor inter-institutional communication and cooperation because in a system of centralized control they were not free to properly work together and their structure was subject to government design, not to emergent needs Consequently the Soviets were not able to consolidate their various individual forays into what could be called hi-tech into anything remotely resembling a coherent and functional plan for developing an alternative to the Western research and production boom. By the 1990s they were still trying to solve innovation problems in consumer manufacturing that had been considered granted in the West since the 50s. steinrokkan has issued a correction as of 11:38 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's a good article about the workings of Soviet innovation and industry: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12814.html Oh yeah, I understand that consumer goods like this weren't exactly a soviet priority. But either way they weren't good at it. The later 'market socialism' reforms really always seem to be a disaster like that. And, it seems, just to mix the worst of both systems. It enables a kind of capitalist class but without competition, a lose lose situation. I don't think competition is the primary incentive of substantial technological development though. The public sector, in any country, historically has done that. Not exactly the 'market'. Deimus has issued a correction as of 11:59 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
I mean, there were excellent Soviet scientists, but what is the point if their discoveries never make it from the lab to application, or if their work is wasted because some link to make it practical is non-existent in the regulated structure of state sciences. Anyway, people need SOME motivation to implement innovation, maybe not market feedback, but at least some professional prestige, a threat of whistle blowing / auditing for a neglect of duty, or a promise of being able to leverage your successes into personal benefits, or even a simple possibility to pursue and manage your own projects, working across various institutions, without a need to fight a central authority first. The strong central planning system limited those things in favor of pure economic arithmetics and satisfying shallow requirements of national bureaucracy, it reduced a person to his specified place in the system with set goals, and gave him neither an opportunity, nor a reason to actually think in terms of innovation. steinrokkan has issued a correction as of 12:11 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Deimus posted:I don't think competition is the primary incentive of substantial technological development though. The public sector, in any country, historically has done that. Not exactly the 'market'. You really have to play games around what constitutes "technological development" for this to be true. Big blue-sky leaps tend to happen with public funding and government oversight simply because of the amount of resources required to go from not having anything like an atomic bomb, or a space program, to having them fully operational with a decade. But that's not the sum total of tech development. A million little improvements in products and services happen all across the private sector all the time. And having a small technological edge that means your product is more reliable, easier to use, has a longer battery life, just plain does its job better are a tremendous incentive in a free market. All of these little improvements just don't happen under state control, since you need to bribe every party official between the factory floor and the centre of government to convince them to update the supply chain and why would you bother going to that much trouble when there's nothing in it for you, and everything to lose if it should go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:did somebody force the soviets to occupy all of these countries they didn't need and enter a dick measuring contest with the previously friendly (and allied) west or something haha "previously friendly" God created the universe in 1938
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:haha "previously friendly" my country had to be occupied because stalin was sad that nobody liked him
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:haha "previously friendly" Well fear of communism/socialism in the 30's and 40's was not nearly as huge as it was in the following decades. FDR himself was more than willing to let Russia have 1 half of the world as long as the United States controlled the other half. That kinda fell apart when he died though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Well fear of communism/socialism in the 30's and 40's was not nearly as huge as it was in the following decades. FDR himself was more than willing to let Russia have 1 half of the world as long as the United States controlled the other half. That kinda fell apart when he died though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:On the other hand, leaders in Europe said "No thanks you dirty commie" to Stalin's suggestion of crushing Hitler before he could power up. This is true. Yes France and England both sucked eggs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Well fear of communism/socialism in the 30's and 40's was not nearly as huge as it was in the following decades. FDR himself was more than willing to let Russia have 1 half of the world as long as the United States controlled the other half. That kinda fell apart when he died though. Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania were all being led by fascist governments which allied with the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union. Bulgaria also allied with the Axis. The question of why the Soviet Union occupied eastern Europe and set up so many puppet states, is because almost every Eastern European state at one point went to war with the Soviet Union during the interwar period, or on the side of the Nazis. Poland had barely learned to crawl before they tried establishing "greater Poland" by stealing lands in Lithuania, Belorussia, and Ukraine. Fear of socialism and communism was the primary animus which pushed support for fascist movements in the first place among Western bourgeoisie, because they thought that they had to beat, rape, or murder the communism out of their workers. Leftists and fascists were fighting street battles at various points in the UK and Germany. There was never any point where fear of socialism or communism weren't absolutely huge, they just got temporarily suspended for WW2 when fascism and Japanese militarism threatened to overturn the entire world order. Many Western leaders were still hoping the Nazis would smash the Soviet Union for them, all the way up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
"You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs!" *smashes the eggs all around the stove in the general direction of the pan, sets the entire stove on fire*
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
wow look at all these paid mourners showing up in havana, also the paid dignitaries from africa and latin america talking about cuba's friendship to national liberation movements https://www.facebook.com/RTnews/videos/10154938788129411/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
rtnews
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
idgi
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:idgi rtnews
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
honestly cuban exiles are assholes castro was right, pretty much shows u sanctions dont work because he was tough as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 12:24
|
|
