|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
Nobody is arguing with me. There's like four posts of random garbage that is completley unrelated to any point I made.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
You see, there weren't only Communist Party candidates in the elections - there were also Leninist Young Communist League candidates and candidates put forward by other institutions established by the Communist Party. Pluralism was alive and well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
RBC posted:That refers to factions within the party. Non-party candidates ran and won in soviet elections. It's a historically documented fact. You wanna cite anything or what 'cuz I seriously doubt any non-approved non-communist party ever ran or won in any USSR election before Stalin died. e: I mean maybe I'm totally wrong  nothing comes to mind though
Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:You wanna cite anything or what 'cuz I seriously doubt any non-approved non-communist party ever ran or won in any Soviet election before Stalin died. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
RBC posted:Nobody is arguing with me. There's like four posts of random garbage that is completley unrelated to any point I made. "i learned from a dialectical materialism textbook how the USSR is supposed to function in theory and took this to actually be super representative of how it functioned in practice" RBC is it you, you are the garbage that is utterly slaughtering any attempt of modern leftism to appeal to normal people
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You see, there weren't only Communist Party candidates in the elections - there were also Leninist Young Communist League candidates and candidates put forward by other institutions established by the Communist Party. Pluralism was alive and well. How is that any different from a country dominated by two parties that are the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:"i learned from a dialectical materialism textbook how the USSR is supposed to function in theory and took this to actually be super representative of how it functioned in practice" Reading history books instead of wikipedia is destroying modern leftism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
RBC posted:How is that any different from a country dominated by two parties that are the same? for one you can elect someone like trump or bernie sanders, whereas under cccp those guys would never have even made it onto a ballot
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
RBC posted:How is that any different from a country dominated by two parties that are the same? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:for one you can elect someone like trump or bernie sanders, whereas under cccp those guys would never have even made it onto a ballot I might be inclined to argue that that could actually suggest the USSR was better than the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
RBC posted:How is that any different from a country dominated by two parties that are the same? Some choice is better than no choice, brainiac. In the USSR there was always only one candidate on a ballot. American diplomacy sucks, but at least there are SOME politicians who are trying to compete. And of course there are other countries where there are more options. Did you know that the Communists over here are projected to get up to 20 percent in this year's general election in my capitalist country? Crazy!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I might be inclined to argue that that could actually suggest the USSR was better than the US. You might be inclined to be a loving retard then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I might be inclined to argue that that could actually suggest the USSR was better than the US. I argue no Donald Trump was a giant wake up call for America, and constrained by norms of democratic governance and the limits of executive power to the point where the damage he does will be limited. In the USSR they didn't figure how much hated the system was until literally the system fell apart
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Trump is still better than Brezhnev. Or Khrushchev.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
RBC posted:Reading history books instead of wikipedia is destroying modern leftism? Are you gonna cite anything here or are you just gonna keep being condescending?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:I argue no I remain skeptical of the notion that Trump can be considered good by any sane metric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Typo posted:for one you can elect someone like trump or bernie sanders, whereas under cccp those guys would never have even made it onto a ballot So what? Neither of them can effect any meaningful change in the state. Trump is the perfect example. Is your point really that a sham election in one country is somehow better than a sham election in another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I might be inclined to argue that that could actually suggest the USSR was better than the US. so much better in fact, the leadership of the country dissolved it voluntarily
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
What was so good about Soviet leaders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
RBC posted:So what? Neither of them can effect any meaningful change in the state. Trump is the perfect example. Is your point really that a sham election in one country is somehow better than a sham election in another. Watch out everybody, we have a pissed off teenager in the room.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
RBC posted:So what? Neither of them can effect any meaningful change in the state. Trump is the perfect example. Is your point really that a sham election in one country is somehow better than a sham election in another. Trump himself probably couldn't, but you had presidents like Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and Reagan who did change the country greatly I wouldn't be surprised if America has another one of those within the next 20 years
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What was so good about Soviet leaders. apparently, they knew when to end it
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Soviets are dumb, I just really don't think "they would have banned trump" is a very good argument against the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Trump is awful, but these undead lich lords of the USSR were models of youthful energy used for progress and crushing individual emancipation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
oh yeah and also I don't think state posts were all that meaningful in the USSR pre-1989 or so, party posts were the meaningful ones with real actual power and I'm pretty sure you had to be a CPUSSR member to sit on the politburo
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Soviets are dumb, I just really don't think "they would have banned trump" is a very good argument against the USSR. it absolutely is a good argument against the USSR, you are effectively telling me that the government is ok with banning popular political candidates if the are sufficiently ideological deviant from the establishment, as determined by a bunch of old by definition establishment politicians sitting around in a politburo meeting
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
we have a couple of very loud posters itt who actually bought into the propaganda of a state that has been dead for twenty years wholesale
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
The last General Secretary of Com. in Czechoslovakia was entirely out of touch with reality, borderline senile (famously he kept mixing up boilers and broilers) and he spent most of his time bitching about how popular singers and actors get paid too much money. He was, if anything, dumber than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:it absolutely is a good argument against the USSR, you are effectively telling me that the government is ok with banning popular political candidates if the are sufficiently ideological deviant from the establishment, as determined by a bunch of old by definition establishment politicians sitting around in a politburo meeting I'm going to say that keeping the cheeto coloured pissbaby from any sort of power or platform, is a fairly reasonable candidate for the concept of objective good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm going to say that keeping the cheeto coloured pissbaby from any sort of power or platform, is a fairly reasonable candidate for the concept of objective good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
As I have said, the undemocratic gerontocratic structure of the Eastern Bloc countries was more than capable of picking its own Trumps, without the benefit of actually having a popular mandate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:As I have said, the undemocratic gerontocratic structure of the Eastern Bloc countries was more than capable of picking its own Trumps, without the benefit of actually having a popular mandate. trump doesnt have a popular mandate
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Typo posted:communism did not do a very good job of keeping lovely politicians from holding power Correct, but "would not have allowed Trump onto the ballot" is still a pretty bad argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
I dunno why the USSR always comes up and has to be re-litigated in threads about communism, it was nominally communist, but mostly state capitalist. Stalin was a lovely communist, the USSR was imperialist and lovely as gently caress, but none of it is due to actual communism.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I dunno why the USSR always comes up and has to be re-litigated in threads about communism, it was nominally communist, but mostly state capitalist. Stalin was a lovely communist, the USSR was imperialist and lovely as gently caress, but none of it is due to actual communism. Decades of propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
And as a consequence he is being widely derided and opposed by massive protests, which would be imossible in the USSR. Unfortunately the representative model isn't too good at removing politicians who have lost their support (which Trump undeniably did have at one point), but it at least restricts the period of executive illegitimacy to a defined period of time, instead of making it perpetual as it was in the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
RBC posted:trump doesnt have a popular mandate he sure does in comparison to the soviet gensecs, but that's a bar so low an ant can jump it
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Listen, you don't have to vote for the Bolshevik party... ... but if you don't I'll report you to NKVD, comrade. quote:However, during that early period a number of individuals attempted to hold the government to the multi-candidate promise, including members of the Russian Orthodox Church who attempted to field religious candidates as a result of Article 124 of the new constitution, which promised freedom of religion. Many of the early individuals attempting to run as alternate candidates were arrested after the decision for multiple candidates was reversed. Additionally, the NKVD conducted mass arrests shortly before the elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:he sure does in comparison to the soviet gensecs, but that's a bar so low an ant can jump it Only 26% of eligible voters voted for Trump. I'd say that's something that's up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Listen, you don't have to vote for the Bolshevik party... That's exactly the same as when FEMA moved all the Bernie Bros to death camps. One sham election or another, there's no difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:37
|
|