/edu/ - Education

List of debunks
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic#heading=h.ty1cm2sp6wbz AntiCommunism debunk post

Previous debunk thread: http://archive.vn/g2gtW

>Technically speaking, art will no longer exist under communism because the purpose of art - to advance the revolution - will be fulfilled. There can be no meaningful art once the utopia is created.
>So music, paintings, movies, games, etc will be gone under communism in favor of working an assembly line making 19th century goods and group sex. In that sense Roddenberry is just a classical liberal with some progressive bullshit thrown in. Very much an FDR style Democrat.

&ltBy counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.
t. Marx

Why People Don't Read Anymore: https://archive.is/w1f30

>>4211
>https://docs.google.com/
blergh

>>4211
does you have a pdf of this??

>>4218
No, but feel free to make one, it's not my doc anyway.

>>4212
>>4212
>Why People Don't Read Anymore: https://archive.is/w1f30
Good post for redpilling Americans.

>>5648
Nicu work

>Muh Minimum Wage is bad! 7 dollars an hour is fine! 11 dollars an hour is fine!
&ltBootstraps!!!

7.25 x 40 = $290 a week. A fucking WEEK. BEFORE TAX. 11.50 x 40 = 460$ a week before tax.

The minimum wage MUST be raised. When it was established, it was in line to be keyed to Inflation rates and the national average cost of living. Minimum wage is NOT set according to skill level. This is the "My Pie Fallacy" where people think they deserve to earn a much higher gap from "burger flippers" and idiots who disagree with raising the wage need to stop it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Other people getting more money doesn't mean you get less, you fucking MORONS.

The minimum wage is supposed to be over $27 right now. That is how much Inflation and Productivity has gone up since the wage was first set in 1938.

In fact, thanks to corporate pandering in Congress, the minimum wage peaked in "value" in 1968, and this was back when the majority of those making minimum wage were teenagers who had families to supplement their major expenses, not people who have families of their own TO support. Many states have recognized this and have implemented their own increased wages.

We are in a VERY precarious place right now with the minimum wage being as dangerously low as it is. We are about to see crime rates increase as more and more people keep being unable to live on their wages alone, as just LAST YEAR the supplementary rates of welfare and EBT systems reached the point where the wage problem surpassed it.

We are being herded to financial ruin by billionaires who intend to crash the market so they can buy companies and stock at a record minimum costs only to turn it around again afterwards and reap the high values. We have seen this before. We MUST eliminate this enemy. If not the rich themselves, then the traitor Republicans they own and keep on leashes must be excised from power and replaced with a competent third party. Because presently they are not an American political group. They are ENEMIES.

>Inb4 muh raised prices
Price Ceiling regulations.

>Inb4 muh immigratns
The importation of workers is a symptom and blocking it isn't going to do anything other than drive low skill positions to be outsourced from the Firs World or result in the hiring of illegal immigrants anyway, as has been demonstrated every single time people have tried restricting immigration for low skill workers. Moreover Immigrants are also part of the market and therefore their effect is negated by their productivity.

>If you're so smart, why aren't you rich!?
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/if-you-re-so-smart-why-aren-t-you-rich?
https://archive.is/cl3WR

>Why did the gas chamber doors have hinges that turned inward when bodies would pile up against the door as people tried to force their way out of the only egress point? Why were they made of wood
Well since the Jews are on the inside of the gas chamber, and they panic and rush the doors, then they can't swing them open. That's why all exits for buildings larger than homes have doors that swing outside. Also push bars, so the force of the crowd would push them open. The Chambers were generally not made of wood.

>Why were the Russians the only ones to ever find a "death camp"
The Germans built their death camps on conquered Poland so they wouldn't have to import Jews in Germany, they wouldn't have to soil German soil with millions of dead bodies, and because it would be convenient for when they ran out of Jews and started gassing Poles. Kind of like how the United States builds it torture camps in Cuba and Iraq.

>Why did the Nazi's kill in such convoluted ways when a bullet to the brain stem costs pennies?
Gas was cheaper and faster while bullets were needed for combat. They even tried gassing by carbon monoxide poisoning from running truck engines, but zyklon B was cheaper still. However majority of Holocaust executions still involved gun-based executions by the Einsatzgruppen.

>modern crematories can't even reach a fraction of that capacity taking 2.5 hours per body and how can so many be done over a short 2 year period
Modern crematoria are designed to cremate individual bodies and return their ashes to their families, as opposed to the mass burning of large number of bodies.

Now a question to pose to Holocaust Deniers, why was no actual Nazi a Holocaust denier during and after the war?

This one simple fact shows that most of what modern deniers try to claim is a silly contrivance. From 1945 onwards, thousands of Nazis were captured and hundreds tried for their part in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. They tried to pretend they were someone else, they tried to pretend they didn't know what was happening, they tried to pretend they didn't have as much to do with it as others, they tried to claim they were just following orders and they tried to justify it as "the kind of thing that happens in war." But what they did NOT do was DENY it happened.

Even men on trial for their lives, in the full knowledge they would be hanged if convicted, never stood up in the courtroom and shouted "This is all a lie! This is a fabrication! There were no gas chambers and no crematoria! I'M BEING FRAMED!!!!" On the contrary, they gave great detail as to precisely how they had helped build and helped run the mechanics of mass murder, some of them even seeming proud of how they had achieved something so complex and on such a vast scale.

Response to pic related

collectivism: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different racial group based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Collectivism and racism are utterly irrelevant to one another In the USSR the entire system existed around collectivization and there were over 200 different races, ethnicities, religions and cultures, yet discrimination was practically non-existent. What more, the (collectivized) people living there were actively educated to be against racism, and thousands of students from under-developed countries were taken in for free to gain an education and to mingle with the peoples of the USSR. Afghani orphans and immigrants were welcomed with open arms in the USSR, with special centers built to educate them and give them homes, homes that were taken away with the advent of capitalism in the states of the ex-USSR. It is self-evident that this was not simply a token act, by the fact that many of the former orphans as adults, are saddened by the fall of the USSR, and some have joined the war in Novarussia, saying that they're paying them back for the kindness they were shown as kids.

Individual rights may be important but excessive attention to only your individual and no others is chauvinistic idiocy. Instead of enriching one-self while the rest remain poor or even at the cost of making others poorer, one must enrich themselves with their fellows and to do that, one must work collectively for a single goal and be ready to sacrifice for a greater good.

>>4466
>Price Ceiling regulations.
Doesn't this just lead to black markets?

>>4557
No, not really, since a price ceiling means that there is a limit to how much something can inflate in price and therefore wages won't be made worthless if prices rise.

>>4558
If something gets price-capped and runs out of stock your only way of getting it is more expensively through other means behind the government's back.

>>4559
Not this argument again.
1 - this implies that it wouldn't have the same thing occur should stock prices not be capped and therefore inflate massively, resulting in the same thing
2 - this implies that capitalist over-production isn't wasteful already and doesn't produce more than enough for everyone.

>>4560
This year alone should be evidence enough that what I said would happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-European_Shepherd
>It was a favourite of the KGB, who only ever kept solid black examples;
&ltif a single non-black pup was born in a litter bred by the KGB the entire litter was destroyed and that breeding was not repeated.
What kind of movie-villain bullshit is this? The sources are some obscure books on dog breeds with no citations themselves. Laughable.

>>4754
Pictured here are members of the Soviet Border Troops, a branch of the KGB, on horseback with a clearly non solid black Shepherd

>>4212
the purpose of art is not to advance the revolution. lol. autistic take

Anyone got a comprehensive debunk on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
>inb4 muh wikipedia
It's a high result on google, therefore it's sadly relevant.

>>5987
You should get more specific
one would probably need a hundred books to debunk all of that

>>5988
Someone who knows more than me about history should go through every single claim and debunk them, then make an infographic.

>>5989
thats absolutly impossible

>>5990
Nothing is impossible, anon.

Absolutely based thread

Anyone have that hilariously pedantic debunk of meme related, talking about how many kilowatts of energy the USSR required compared to the output of the reactor and the explosion?

Also on the topic of strawmen
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/888/306/246.png
is probably one of the most retarded Horseshoe memes I've seen yet, and the fact that the morons of KYM are wanking it as being "so true" is even worse.

There's a reason I'm completely against any sort of private money being introduced, directly or indirectly, into the political process, and why I think that we should move completely towards a system of public funding for election campaigns and put strict limits on lobbying.

While the First Amendment does enumerate the rights to freedom of speech and "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," I do not believe that includes the right of private citizens to provide material assistance of any kind to politicians or political candidates. You can write a letter to your Congressperson. You can buy your own personal billboard. But you should be able to provide literally nothing to the candidate, either when they're running for office or when they're holding office. No money, no gifts, no favors. You use your words and nothing else. Absolutely. Nothing.

Private donations and other favors are inherently corrupting, regardless of their current legality. They come with an implicit quid pro quo attached to them. "I do this for you, and you pass laws that benefit our agenda and/or bottom line." It's an investment, and the donor wants a return on that investment. There's a reason why it seems politicians owe more loyalty towards the corporations, special interests, and other powerful private entities than to the people at large. Because they do. They will always put the needs of their biggest donors ahead of those of the rest of their constituents.

>>4466
>The importation of workers is a symptom and blocking it isn't going to do anything other than drive low skill positions to be outsourced from the Firs World or result in the hiring of illegal immigrants anyway, as has been demonstrated every single time people have tried restricting immigration for low skill workers. Moreover Immigrants are also part of the market and therefore their effect is negated by their productivity.
They're still a major cause for the decrease of cost of unskilled labour. Block migrants who are low-skill so they can help their own countries. Impose high tarrifs on imported goods. Simple as.

>>6633
>a major cause for the decrease of cost of unskilled labour
No they are not, even without immigration the reserve army of labour causes wages to be decreased, and the reserve army of labour will never be allowed to dry up.
>high tarrifs on imported goods
Same as the above, the import policy of the USA in 1929 and subsequent Depression demonstrate how this is no more than a temporary solution, like putting a lid on a boiling pot.

>>6635
>No they are not, even without immigration the reserve army of labour causes wages to be decreased, and the reserve army of labour will never be allowed to dry up.
And what is this "reserve army" of labour you speak of? If it's women, then you simply make women culturally prevented from work. If it's the elderly, then you must understand that those who are becoming physically incapable of work will not only probably refuse to work, but even if they tried, employers with an iota of intelligence will refuse to hire them.
>Same as the above, the import policy of the USA in 1929 and subsequent Depression demonstrate how this is no more than a temporary solution, like putting a lid on a boiling pot.
Can you provide evidence that the import policy had a large amount of influence on the Depression's occurrence? And if it was the primary or even one of the top 5 causes of the Depression, then according to Marxism, it's likely that there would be something else that would cause an equally serious economic depression since they are apparently inevitable. In that case, why do you say as if high tariffs are something that caused an economic depression?

>>6615
>KYM
Damn, i used to frequent that shithole i was a lib there in 2019, the community was full of pseudo intellectual centrists and right-winger that they broke bread with against le coomie sjw, just now i have gone there and saw a post about stalin being a le pedo, still it was there that i learned ex- socialist countries wanted to go back so it kinda was the start of my radicalization.

>>6636
>"reserve army" of labour you speak of
The non employed working class you dolt - people who are eligible to be part of the work force but are not working out of lack of jobs
>inb4 just make more jobs
This is neither infinite, nor efficient, and moreover it's against the interest of the elite upper classes to provide jobs or products for all, see pic related.
>make women culturally prevented from work
Which
A) Would be protested by a significant portion of the population
B) unsupported by the ruling class, who purposefully changed wage labor to force women to work to let people earn enough money to live and support their family, helping to further alienate family from one another through daily isolation from one another.
>the elderly
The fuck are you talking about?
>Incapable of work
No shit, but the fact that pensions, healthcare and other necessities are being undercut constantly doesn't mean they aren't forced to seek work into their old age to survive.

>provide evidence
Evidence of what? The Smoot-Hawley Act put high import taxes on over 20,000 products which, due to the depression in the other parts of the international market exacerbated inflation by creating price-wage gaps that spiraled into an utter collapse. Fairly basic cause and effect. Obviously there were other factors, but there are always other factors, point is high tariffs have never been successful or useful in capitalism because it restricts the market, which contradictive both requires and opposes regulation - see Adam Smith, if this is not as self-evident as it should be.
>why do you say as if high tariffs are something that caused an economic depression?
Because those aren't dichotomies, capitalism has a predicted and observed habit to cycle through inflation and depressions, which often involve collapses of economies, this being enacted by the ever fluctuating existence or lack of policies and actions of the state, which acts in the interests of the upper class capitalists.

>>6647
>wanted to go back so it kinda was the start of my radicalization.
They downvote the hell out of any "commie" and support mostly liberal politics, among which is moaning about Uighur camps and other such tripe.

>>6661
Like i said, full of centrists and right wingers, but is not unexpeced, since they mosty repeat news from the propaganda multiplier or repeating from memes/screencaps from reddit/4chan, what do you expect it would happen, honestly another thing that place teached me is to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do and if you don't like it just leave to not bust your head as most of it is shit flinging, screaming and egomaniacal people going up their moral high horses to shit on those people they see as wrong over, not caring about internet bullshit really does wonder for your brain.

>>6665
>to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do
I learned that lesson way before KYM, but good for you m8.

>>6660
>>inb4 just make more jobs
>This is neither infinite, nor efficient, and moreover it's against the interest of the elite upper classes to provide jobs or products for all, see pic related.
Not sure how that works. The rich need people to do the work they can't do. If they want to make more money, they'll either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist, see: Adam Smith on landlords, or they'll have to increase the product, or they'll have to make some sort of scientific advancement. Excluding the first, which we can all agree is a pan-ideological issue that everyone besides a few hates, the other two end up benefiting everyone else. More product is needed to be made by more workers, more people get more jobs. Retard. The latter is obvious.
>A) Would be protested by a significant portion of the population
pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women. badda boom.
>B) unsupported by the ruling class, who purposefully changed wage labor to force women to work to let people earn enough money to live and support their family, helping to further alienate family from one another through daily isolation from one another.
Cart before the horse. Certain people supported second-wave feminism, feminism let women work, Capitalists reduced their prices for labour seeing the higher supply of it. Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics caused a harmful cycle that can only be solved by cutting off the supply of labour.
>The Smoot-Hawley Act put high import taxes on over 20,000 products which, due to the depression in the other parts of the international market exacerbated inflation by creating price-wage gaps that spiraled into an utter collapse.
It's rather debated if the Smoot-Hawley act actually had a hand in worsening the situation. To you it may seem cut and dry, but to me it seems way more inconclusive. Then again, social issues are more of my forte. I ain't no economist, and I don't see that changing because I see social issues as more important than economic issues.
>Because those aren't dichotomies, capitalism has a predicted and observed habit to cycle through inflation and depressions, which often involve collapses of economies, this being enacted by the ever fluctuating existence or lack of policies and actions of the state, which acts in the interests of the upper class capitalists.
If the cycle was caused by government inaction, and then action under political pressure, then why does most evidence lead to the great depression rather being caused by panicked private interests trying to save their profits? While I can admit, this does put a pin on the problems with our current system, it doesn't directly provide evidence to the theory that government intervention is the problem. Rather, it could be the solution if anything.

>>6684
>The rich need people to do the work they can't do
Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
>either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist
<Adam Smith
If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
>the other two end up benefiting everyone else
Except they don't. More product doesn't = good because A) too much availability devalues demand, forcing them to create artificial demand by restricting products or making "better" products more expensive, as the infographic explains.
>retard
No, YOU are retarded if you think your naiive idea actually makes sense when the system itself does not do so in reality on purpose. The amount of food produced in the USA far exceeds people's needs, but yet we still have people who starve or are forced to eat the shittiest, unhealthiest foods to survive, because price gouging. Companies like Star Market throw out up to 80% of their food despite it being still edible because it's an excess production.
>pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women
That ain't gonna work, Gung-ho Joe
>Certain people supported second-wave feminism
Porky, call a spade, a spade.
>Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics
How is a literal capitalist market economy LEFTIST? Stop associating retard liberals with leftism when they're dumbass centrists. The Soviet economy and Female work force already demonstrates that a leftist economy had women not forced to work by the need to support their family but merely given the option to pursue their interests and a career and also be able to have a family without having to worry about things like electricity bills, taxes, healthcare costs and other rubbish that might make a domestic life hard to support.
>I see social issues as more important than economic issues
And therein lies your problem, social and economic issues are connected things, not separate or dichotomous, that's why capitalism and communism are Socio-Economic systems and not a social or economic systems. This is the most basic Base-Superstructure argument - a stable organized economy allows for stable growth which in turn supports a stable society that can afford to develop interests outside of just work and rest. If the economy is inherently unstable, society will also be.
>If the cycle was caused by government inaction
Under capitalism the government can never be in control because it is a tool of the upper class whose votes matter more through lobbying, social status and other pressure. The government is a marionette, an attack dog of porky who does their bidding, and if they step out of line, they get replaced. If necessary a candidate for a governmental position will demonstrate ideology they wish to promote, last term it was Trump for the pro-conservatives, now its Biden, to appeal to the liberals.
>why does most evidence lead to the great depression rather being caused by panicked private interests trying to save their profits?
Because the government's hands-free-approach led to policies that let these private companies do what they want, and this led to these companies controlling the market unrestricted, and driving it into the crash, which is especially egregious, given how the American Economy was riding the high from the industrial boom caused by WW1 reducing foreign competition and reviving the military-industrial complex (See General Smedley's War is a Racket).
>doesn't directly provide evidence to the theory that government intervention is the problem. Rather, it could be the solution if anything
Under a capitalist system government intervention can only be a stop gap, and only if it pulls something like FDR did, which gets everyone's panties in a twist. Regardless the system will continue to inflate and collapse unless a planned economic system with an appropriately organized government is used, this is proven with the rapid growth of Japan and how it had a collapse in the 90s due to private corporations trying to break away from this.

>>6687
>Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
I wonder how they do that. hmm.
>If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
Yes and he doesn't give a shit about Marx either.
>How is a literal capitalist market economy LEFTIST? Stop associating retard liberals with leftism when they're dumbass centrists. The Soviet economy and Female work force already demonstrates that a leftist economy had women not forced to work by the need to support their family but merely given the option to pursue their interests and a career and also be able to have a family without having to worry about things like electricity bills, taxes, healthcare costs and other rubbish that might make a domestic life hard to support.
name literally anyone who was pro-immigration, pro-women rights, pro-gayshit, etc. who didn't describe themselves as a socialist, particularly when those ideas were "on the fringe." And wait, are you seriously saying that "you must work or u will starve" is bad? Where the fuck do you think the food comes from? Everything we've built in our society is created by transiting the effort needed to hunt, farm, or herd into the effort to create literally anything else. If you seriously say "Women will work because they want to in communism" then that's fucking retarded. You will need to work in communism in the same vein that you will need to work in capitalism.
Assuming that women will get to choose to work under socialism is fucking ridiculous because it implies so many different things. If women choose, do men not have the choice? If women choose, why would they choose? If it's a choice to work, then who will work besides the likely minority who won't devulge in earthly pleasures? So many base fucking questions that are just answered by "Just make 'em work."
>And therein lies your problem, social and economic issues are connected things, not separate or dichotomous, that's why capitalism and communism are Socio-Economic systems and not a social or economic systems. This is the most basic Base-Superstructure argument - a stable organized economy allows for stable growth which in turn supports a stable society that can afford to develop interests outside of just work and rest. If the economy is inherently unstable, society will also be.
Social issues come before economic. Nobody will give a fuck about how the joo- I mean the booj are oppressing them when they're living off of pills not to off themselves, living a cold, lonely life. This is clearly fact, look at how little people give a shit about anything economically related when social leftism/liberalism/anything-against-tradition-alism became the cultural norm.
>Under capitalism the government can never be in control because it is a tool of the upper class whose votes matter more through lobbying, social status and other pressure. The government is a marionette, an attack dog of porky who does their bidding, and if they step out of line, they get replaced. If necessary a candidate for a governmental position will demonstrate ideology they wish to promote, last term it was Trump for the pro-conservatives, now its Biden, to appeal to the liberals.
Well no shit. The question now is, do we need to change the system of good creation and distribution to solve the issue of the rich and the government jerking eachother off to specifically fuck us over?
>Because the government's hands-free-approach led to policies that let these private companies do what they want, and this led to these companies controlling the market unrestricted, and driving it into the crash, which is especially egregious, given how the American Economy was riding the high from the industrial boom caused by WW1 reducing foreign competition and reviving the military-industrial complex (See General Smedley's War is a Racket).
I don't know man, seems kinda retarded for rich people to give their power away like that.
>Under a capitalist system government intervention can only be a stop gap, and only if it pulls something like FDR did, which gets everyone's panties in a twist. Regardless the system will continue to inflate and collapse unless a planned economic system with an appropriately organized government is used, this is proven with the rapid growth of Japan and how it had a collapse in the 90s due to private corporations trying to break away from this.
Sounds like what Fascists want. What I want.

>>6688 Seriously m8 I want to say read a book, because everything you're saying is the most basic bitch myths of what socialism is and isn't.
>how they do that
Exploitation of labor and surplus value as well as promotion of hyperconsumerism.
> he doesn't give a shit about Marx
Sure he does, because they actively oppose Marx's ideology, as it threatens their entire system by criticizing and exposing its ineffective and corrupt nature.
>name literally anyone who was pro-immigration, pro-women rights, pro-gayshit, etc. who didn't describe themselves as a socialist
<describe themselves
Are you retarded or just pretending? Besides the fact that most anti-socialist liberals, basically every modern "leftist" in the West promotes an idpol-addled rainbow capitalism. They just want more gay, black and female porkies, because they're retards. This is directly opposed to Socialist ideology which puts class issues first, and places idpol issues as secondary and only as part of class issues. Intersectionality is inherently anti-socialist, which is why Western liberal feminists have been excluded from genuine socialist circles since the times of Marx and onwards pic 1&2 related.
>"you must work or u will starve" is bad
<Lenin and the USSR literally promoted "Those who do not work, do not eat" except in regards to invalids, children, mothers and the elderly, (and even then invalids, and the elderly had opportunities for work if they wished so, but did not need to). Pic 5 related (this growth was built on labor)
No faggot, I'm saying that people should need to struggle like slaves to survive, because if they spend all their time laboring they have no time to become cultured and be actually self-actualized human beings (pic 3 related), poor people in the 1950s were reading more than people do today FFS because people literally have less time to even kickback and read a book, as they come home tired and just want to watch braindead escapist TV and drink beer (see Orwell).
>If women choose, do men not have the choice
<do the people who are traditionally the breadwinners of sustenance for their families get a choice to not do this
Nice goal-post shifting.
>who will work besides the likely minority who won't devulge in earthly pleasures
See the USSR, AGAIN. People were encouraged but not forced to work full time because it was ingrained into the culture that people shouldn't be leeches and ought to work if they can, this freedom of choice meant rather than women doing the same exact work as men because of some delusional feminist equilism, they could pursue careers that interested them. Men ALSO pursued careers of interest but were also culturally obligated to work in general, because men are breadwinners and women usually became housewives and mothers with responsibilities there instead. Women in the USSR worked jobs that were appropriate for them and did part-time because they were encouraged to be wives and mothers without the stress of not being able to provide for their family.
>so many questions answered by "fuck ethics and trying to think, lets just do shit on impulse"
c'mon now
>Social issues come before economic
No they fucking don't. Social issues, unless they are incredibly minor, are usually linked to economic problems. The main issue of, say, racial equality is equal social standing through equal economic standing. People getting lower pay or being rejected for jobs because of race is a social issue based on an economic problem. The Base (economy) is more major than the Superstructure (society). As I've said many times before, 90% of identity-politics problems about women's rights and black rights and whatever the fuck would be solved automatically by a change in the mode of production and economic organization, because most of these delusions by liberals are actually just part of a single greater class issue. Pic 4 reelated
>when they're living off of pills not to off themselves
Doesn't stop every Jamal, Vicky and Tom from organizing Pussy Parade protests and BLM riots, no matter how hopped up on Oxi they might be.
>how little people give a shit about anything economically related… when muh 'leftists; became the cultural norm
Again, liberal capitalism with a rainbow coat of paint and virtue signalling is still capitalism, the WHOLE POINT of these liberal delusions is to distract from the fact that it's the ECONOMIC issues that are important, you wackadoo. It's like They Live but far less obvious.
>do we need to change the system of good creation and distribution
Since a switch to socialism (actual socialism and not whatever you think socialism is) involves Alt+F4ing the Elite upper class and seizing their assets - which are basically the majority of the worlds resources - and organizing them under a planned system… YES.
>seems kinda retarded for rich people to give their power away
The elite command the government and prefer when the government only restricts those who are restricting their liberty to exploit people.
>Sounds like what Fascists want. What I want.
A planned economic system, with organized government to provide stability? Buddy, you want socialism, REAL socialism like Marxist-Leninism or the like, not liberal frauds or social democrat half-asses. The ORIGINAL fascist ideology was essentially a breakaway from Marxism, but it's incomplete and flawed.

Seriously, literally 90% of the things self-claimed fascists want are achievable through far less immoral and irrational means and with far more efficiency with Marxism-Leninism.

>>6699
>people should NOT need to struggle like slaves to survive
corrected a typo in my post.

>>6699
>Are you retarded or just pretending? Besides the fact that most anti-socialist liberals, basically every modern "leftist" in the West promotes an idpol-addled rainbow capitalism. They just want more gay, black and female porkies, because they're retards. This is directly opposed to Socialist ideology which puts class issues first, and places idpol issues as secondary and only as part of class issues. Intersectionality is inherently anti-socialist, which is why Western liberal feminists have been excluded from genuine socialist circles since the times of Marx and onwards pic 1&2 related.
Well good. I'm glad to hear you're solving that issue out.
>No faggot, I'm saying that people should need to struggle like slaves to survive, because if they spend all their time laboring they have no time to become cultured and be actually self-actualized human beings (pic 3 related), poor people in the 1950s were reading more than people do today FFS because people literally have less time to even kickback and read a book, as they come home tired and just want to watch braindead escapist TV and drink beer (see Orwell).
I think that this issue can be solved multiple ways. It could be a physiological/psychological issue as opposed to caused by economics. Workers in the 1950's probably more than likely did more strenuous physical work due to the absence of large-scale white-collar work. This could be solved in a multitude of ways that doesn't imply the dissolution of our current socio-economic system; rather it can be solved through better nutrition, more cohesive societies, etc.
>Nice goal-post shifting.
Fair point. But in the case of arguing if women should work, there's a whole pile of other factors on why women are working today. It makes no sense how Muhammed can work a simple job and pay for his 9 children and wife, but native citizens can't find a way to support kids under one income. There could be multiple factors, some of which having economic influence but can be easily pinned on "da jooz bad."
>See the USSR, AGAIN. People were encouraged but not forced to work full time because it was ingrained into the culture that people shouldn't be leeches and ought to work if they can, this freedom of choice meant rather than women doing the same exact work as men because of some delusional feminist equilism, they could pursue careers that interested them. Men ALSO pursued careers of interest but were also culturally obligated to work in general, because men are breadwinners and women usually became housewives and mothers with responsibilities there instead. Women in the USSR worked jobs that were appropriate for them and did part-time because they were encouraged to be wives and mothers without the stress of not being able to provide for their family.
idk man seems like a bunch of shit to me made up for optics. i mean you really can't tell what'd happen because all the information would probably be filtered through multiple layers of pro-Sovietshit, CIAuyghurtry, etc. But personally I don't buy that's how it works.
>No they fucking don't. Social issues, unless they are incredibly minor, are usually linked to economic problems. The main issue of, say, racial equality is equal social standing through equal economic standing. People getting lower pay or being rejected for jobs because of race is a social issue based on an economic problem. The Base (economy) is more major than the Superstructure (society). As I've said many times before, 90% of identity-politics problems about women's rights and black rights and whatever the fuck would be solved automatically by a change in the mode of production and economic organization, because most of these delusions by liberals are actually just part of a single greater class issue.
Again, John Doe won't give a fucking shit about his economy unless he genuinely feels connected. You're getting this shit seriously backwards. What happens when he doesn't have a community to stand within? He turns to product.
>inb4 "see then it's economic"
the cause is economic. but the solution needs to work it's way backwards. the solution is social. create a community, someone will focus on the community for his identity, consumerism is no longer accepted, and now companies need to focus on creating gooder and gooder shit for the sake of profit.
>Again, liberal capitalism with a rainbow coat of paint and virtue signalling is still capitalism, the WHOLE POINT of these liberal delusions is to distract from the fact that it's the ECONOMIC issues that are important, you wackadoo. It's like They Live but far less obvious.
It's more like trying to further their goals. If anything, Fascism is the solution and the furthering of society in Marx's idea of the dialectic; class cooperation under the idea of a better future in the philosophical norm. Then, after a good while and technology advances to make labour hyper-efficient, then socialism can arise through a near post-scarcity society.
>Since a switch to socialism (actual socialism and not whatever you think socialism is) involves Alt+F4ing the Elite upper class and seizing their assets - which are basically the majority of the worlds resources - and organizing them under a planned system… YES.
>planned system
that's what I call "Fascism." We all work together. Give the poor fucktons of guns and give them unions to hold the rich under the thread of violence with a lack of cooperation. The rich hold all the cards, so there'd be a state of deadlock when it comes to fucking eachother over, so the only way the two can progress is via working together, which leads to Fascism. This can increase progression of society so quickly it can lead to a classless society as work and the obtaining of food is no longer a challenge, but a guarantee.
>The elite command the government and prefer when the government only restricts those who are restricting their liberty to exploit people.
So again, give the unions a fuckton of rifles.
>A planned economic system, with organized government to provide stability? Buddy, you want socialism, REAL socialism like Marxist-Leninism or the like, not liberal frauds or social democrat half-asses. The ORIGINAL fascist ideology was essentially a breakaway from Marxism, but it's incomplete and flawed.
I've seen a video essay that Fascism is the only true concept of socialism, I have it lying around somewhere.

>>6702
>solving that issue out
It's never been an issue until liberals decided to LARP as socialists in the USA, which is why leftism in burgerland is good as dead.
>Workers in the 1950's probably more than likely did more strenuous physical work due to the absence of large-scale white-collar work
I suggest you watch Mad Men, there was plenty of White Collar Work at the time, and work hours are generally the same as is the work load (just different types), so that had no influence on free time. Porky doesn't need people to read or have time to educate themselves, they need dumbasses just smart enough to do their jobs and not question the system or its media narratives.
>through better nutrition, more cohesive societies
Again, that's something that is based on economic systems, you cannot have a cohesive society when everyone is constantly competing not to just be the best but to literally survive, even though we're supposed to be 'civilized'. Moreover Better nutrition requires an economic production system that can provide this and not deny food because they need to make a profit, capitalism has repeatedly failed at this, and fascism has also.
>It makes no sense how Muhammed can work a simple job and pay for his 9 children and wife, but native citizens can't find a way to support kids under one income
Abuse of the welfare system through having so many children and an unemployed wife while being below the poverty line and foreign. Like I said, ineffective and stupid, and the MAIN factor is economic incentive.
>all the information would probably be filtered through multiple layers of pro-Sovietshit, CIAuyghurtry
The fuck are you on about? The CIA has no reason to support the USSR given how they consistently attempted to sabotage and undermine it, and the USSR is not around to censor its archives. pics related
>John Doe won't give a fucking shit about his economy unless he genuinely feels connected
No shit Sherlock, see pic 4 related. Why do you think that the Soviet constitution guaranteed employment, housing and sustenance for all people?
Work, Land and Bread not good enough? How about having the assurance that you won't get thrown out of your home because of Mortgage or losing electricity and water because you didn't have the money to pay the bills, or that you go into debt because of an illness forcing you into the hospital.
>turns to product
Consumerist distraction
>someone will focus on the community for his identity
The point is that being so shallow in your identity that it goes to gender and skin color is reductive and retarded, and that a class unity is not only larger but actually matters, while anything else is a distraction, see the pyramids.
>Fascism is the solution and the furthering of society in Marx's idea of the dialectic; class cooperation under the idea of a better future in the philosophical norm. Then, after a good while and technology advances to make labour hyper-efficient, then socialism can arise through a near post-scarcity society.
I can see that you mean well but I don't think that's going to work, we don't need fascism especially when NazBols cover that better
>what I call "Fascism
But that's not fascism, that is socialism m8.
>Give the poor fucktons of guns and give them unions to hold the rich under the thread of violence with a lack of cooperation
That's the opposite of fascism, that's democratic socialism. Fascism is about class collaborationism with the upper class and it won't work the way you think, because a crowd of people with guns will be easy to fracture apart and control, the protests in the USA from Hippies to the Wall Street and BLM are all examples of this fractured stupidity, because only the middle and lower class is impacted in reality.
>give the unions a fuckton of rifles
America has more guns than it knows what to do with, doesn't help shit. Besides if the House of Congress showed anything, even a peaceful protest will be cracked down on if it fits the elite's needs.
> a video essay that Fascism is the only true concept of socialism
Sounds familiar but I disagree on that point though I'm too tired to go into it right now.

>>6710
yknow, maybe we arent so different after all.

>>6711
Perhaps. Frankly I tend to dislike the absolutism some people on /leftypol/ have in regards to self-called fascists, I believe that most 'fascists' are just socialists who strive for socialist ideas but capitalist propaganda has made them dislike the name socialism and instead associate with the superficially similar concept of fascism, that's why I actually bother to argue and explain instead of dismiss.

>>6712
Yeah, I think you're right on that one.

Do any one has the source of this image, if not is there books about the economical blockade the ussr suffered on its starting years ?.

>>6718
I think this is based on Mark Tauger's book but I can't find the excerpt

I was wondering about this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532036/North-Korea-locks-up-disabled-in-subhuman-gulags-says-UN.html
Apparently the disabled are also prohibited from having children in North Korea. But, that information seems to come solely from defectors. How much do we actually know about the situation of disabled people in NK?

>>6801
As far as I know from anecdotal resources (friends I know and rely on) the situation is basically
A) They don't have the resources for specialized facilities so sometimes the disabled (really disabled people) get placed in the equivalent of a retirement home. As for children it's mostly because those with genetic defects who won't have healthy children are disallowed, mostly because they can't support assisted care for this. It's a harsh but necessary pragmatism for the DPRK, not done out of some ideological dislike of the disabled.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1257092-reddit
>r/socialism is all leftism
>Venezuelans are socialism
>"everyone was praising it's socialism until it failed!"
<ignores the fact that the USA was praising Venezuela as capitalist until the economy tanked and US companies were being restricted.
God KYM is retarded

Did the Taliban actually need Russia to pay them to kill Americans? And on top of that, has there been substantive evidence that this happened beside "anonymous CIA sources"? The last time we trusted these guys without anything solid to go on we ended up with a multi-decade "war on terror".

Anyone got a decent response to >>>/leftypol/472365 ? Not saying it's legit, given how there are little sources to be gleaned, but still a rebuttal would be nice.
Archive: https://archive.ph/jSugB

>>6949
Took a quick look at it, some of what he said is covered is this article:
https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric:%22Karl_Marx_was_a_bad_person,_therefore_Marxism_is_wrong%22

I find curious how he decries Marx as being pretty much a tramp, misbehaving child, but at the same time he's an "armchair" communist lol

But i'm intrigued about the whole "capital trap" thing

Are there any debunks of Gareth Jones re:Ukrainian famine? Almost every debunk I’ve read on the topic ignores him, and goes for the easy pickings (Nazis, fraudsters, etc.), despite the fact that he broke the first western articles on the famine.

>>7251
Gareth's materials aren't directly gone after because they're part of Hearst's shitposting
https://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/soviet_articles.htm

Vid related got posted by a college professor in 'my' History class. The same teacher stated Marx to be a Utopian Socialist. He also said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qF5NU-ehU is the videos that DPRK classrooms show to students.
>they have no tractors
>they have no cars
yeah because no international trade
>they have poor electricity
yeah because they're not very resource rich and generating power takes resources
>they have no plumbing
same as above
>oh wow how weird they have buddhist temples? i thought they were atheist commies
This part is especially gross. They take something that blatantly counters their narrative and then they attribute the cognitive dissonance that provokes as being a product of the country (rather than their narrative about it) being weird and incoherent. They can't tolerate even one thing that's ok or good so they have to portray it as somehow fake and alien so they can use it to build the case that there's something weird about the country.

They try so hard to make it look like its the worst place on earth when its just average countryside, maybe she never stepped outside of London or seen rural America before.

>A Soviet newspaper reports: "Last night the Chernobyl Nuclear Power station fulfilled the Five Year Plan of heat energy generation… in 4 microseconds."
This meme doesn't work because the amount of energy output generated from the explosions wouldn't have been enough to power a country for a year, let alone five years. Just as an example, the 2nd explosion was 40GJ (40 billion joules), which is what some single houses use in a month in modern times. Hell, the yearly US energy consumption is 94 EJ (94 quintillion joules).
Yes I know it's 'just a meme'. It's a stupid one IMO and nuclear science gets dunked on too much by morons.

>>4557
Yes.

>Eugenics and Social Darwinism
Once you have tool-using animals with a toolset as versatile as humans, natural selection doesn't count for a whole lot. Social Darwinism is a cope for imperialists to pretend that their regressive and stupid world-system is actually progressive and the rule of evolution. The really interesting development is not genetic or hereditary but the development of new machines and methods, and humans always form a symbiotic relationship with their tools, even if they would prefer not to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iClQVIlWs5A
I’m gonna debunk this video because there’s so many things wrong with it point by point (greentext is not the video points but TL;DR of the counterpoints.
>1 no governments do not make housing more expensive it’s more often times landlords
Because money, it’s that simple landlords want high housing prices and that means designing low density cities while forcing the government to pay for them all and what ends up happening is property prices skyrocket while demand for housing increases but can’t be built on as landlords lobby and bribe politicians around the world heavily in favour of more suburbia and unsustainable office towers and skyscrapers because it wastes a fuck ton of land and forces out competition, it’s cheaper to build maintain and repair one 30 story by 5 room high rise apartment that could house thousands than build an entire suburban neighborhood
>2 landlords don’t build anything
They buy land, hire a team to design(most of the time they just steal designs off older buildings) something and then get the government to actually develop the land and maintain what’s left, infrastructure isn’t fucking magical it’s literal blocks of concrete slabs stacked on top of each other that have pipes wires and radio waves running through them, that shit costs far more than what most capitalists can reasonably pay for and hence they don’t, that’s why most infrastructure in North America is visibly fucking old and decaying
>there’s a lot less people demanding room in cities than one would think
If you live in a developed country it’s unlikely that demand for cities will be that huge as most of the population would’ve already lived there, also jacked up prices are only ever bought for if wages or opportunities for high pay are available otherwise people naturally respond to said high prices and move the fuck out to small towns where shits cheaper instead of paying dozens of thousands of dollars to live in fucking cages, for developing countries it’s pretty much the same obnoxious shit

The guy who made this is unsurprisingly a libertarian and likely a dude in his early 20s that hasn’t read that well into economics beyond literal beginners textbooks and early gilded age models of meritocracy

Cryptocurrency has failed, and here's why. Without including bots and illegal transactions, how often do you see it used as actual, you know, currency? Almost never. Meanwhile, every ancap and their racist uncle has poured money into bitcoin because it's "such a good investment" it's just become another way to invest, except it got popular with 15 year olds. However, bitcoin is such an obvious pyramid scheme that one can only hope these people don't pull out until it's too late for them and their precious ancap money.

Due to the wild fluctuations that it undergoes by its nature, it cannot be used to fix prices. As such, the value of commodities in general must be expressed first in terms of fiat currency–actual money–before they can be given a price in cryptocurrency. It thus falls short of the very defining quality of the money commodity. Also, from a practical standpoint, cryptocurrency is perpetually deflationary which makes it more attractive as a speculative asset than as a means of payment. This makes it spectacularly inefficient in macroeconomic terms, since more of it is thus required (due to rampant and unpredictable hoarding) to facilitate all transactions that go on at any given time. Then, of course, you have the massive shortcoming that it is utterly useless as a marker for debt. Not only do fluctuations and deflation make a mockery of the concept of interest, but the very thing that makes it attractive–anonymity–undermines any guarantee of future payment.

A cool piece of software for drawing won't produce cool pictures if it isn't used by anybody or people who are lazy and got no talent. Likewise, no amount of programmer brilliance can make trading software work if everybody is an absolute shithead. Trading is a social phenomenon linked with production, which is also a highly social process despite what the ruling ideology tells you. A lot of what makes society work is patterns of behavior by masses of people that "libertarians" just take for granted or aren't even aware of. The concept of proof of work in Bitcoin should really be called proof of waste, since it serves 0 other purpose besides creating the proof.

There's an alternative called Gridcoin that actually uses the calculations for something else than just doing random shit, but I haven't looked deeper into it. Proof of stake doesn't look that great either, it just rewards the haves and punishes the have-nots. I don't want to have electronic coins for their own sake, I want to obtain products and services. And I want to avoid disagreements and disappointments, and if something like that happens anyway, I want to have some avenue for dealing with scammers. Bitcoin and similar concepts don't really do anything about that. It is foolish to focus so much on technical innovation here, since they can't really solve the basic issue, which is social. Impressive tech with a shit community gets beaten by mediocre tech with a nice community.

Crypto stuff mostly behaves like a speculative investment, economically. It also does function in a limited capacity for exchange of goods and services and contract management. The initial driver of popularity was that it promised to function as a way to bypass wall-street. As a people's finance. But since the distribution of high inequality (1) was reproduced in the cryptosphere, and wallstreet-money could also buy into it, as result it lost steam. Basically there was an expectation that the distributed systems would negate power in of it self, where also the individual economic interaction would be between the individual personal wealth pile and a collective wealth pile of an ethereal commons. Private property was supposed to be replaced with digital property, that belonged to the commons and was controlled by an emergent swarm intelligence. Also too many young adults of middle income families lost money in crypto-currency gambling with all of the different cryptocoins. It was pump and dump mania. However it's not likely going to crash and burn. To an extend it's a subsystem of the capitalist finance and legal system, but only half way. The main problem with co-opting it for labour vouchers and planning (2), is technical, it needs computers to run, and we don't have a secure computer infrastructure, in terms of end-user-devices, even though the crypto networking is decent in terms of security.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM&ab_channel=PaulCockshott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBxjrAjrIZY&ab_channel=NewEconomicThinking
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI01-5zhwdA&ab_channel=PaulCockshott

>Ecological Impact of NFTs
Among the arguments made for Crypto is ecology, the idea being no physical money = no trees chopped. The problem being that this is incorrect. As the blockchain gets longer, it takes more processing power to produce a Bitcoin. This makes the value of the Bitcoin go up, which creates an incentive for Bitcoin miners thinking they can get the next one, which in turn lengthens the blockchain. As a result of this cycle, you have enormous processing power, which requires real physical electrical production, chasing the blockchain.

Here are posts from Crooked Timber's John Quiggin complaining about the economics of Bitcoin:
https://archive.md/Nk8qj
https://archive.md/CEd7O

can someone go into that Cosmos episode about genetics where is just muh holodomor shit and debunk that ?.

Can someone debunk this retarded "Muh 1950 soviet police phenotype chart" (pic related). It's a fake but I can't find the ources debunking it and I need some help.

>>9440
This site claims it is from the State Archive of the Russian Federation: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/sketches-soviet-police-ethnicity/

>>9441
Except it isn't. It's some post-Soviet shit by some rando, not related to the police at all, I just can't remember the details of it.

>>9455
Shit, i could've swore i had seen an image debunk of it (on a facebook page or something) being posted on the booru. But i had no luck finding it.

Maybe someone on QTDDTOT has it?

>>9457
Maybe, I also recall the debunk being posted on the site but that'd been a long time ago.

>>9457
bro did you even try? I just typed in "debunk" and it was on the third page

>>9476
By the way the oldest appearance of this image seen by TinEye is from 2008 January: https://oper.ru/gallery/view.php?t=1048751694

The "debunk" might be bullshit too.

>>9476
Well, i searched for tags such as "debunk" + "tatar" + "jew", so that's why i couldn't find anything.

>>9476
Browser searches are localized, I did that exact thing and all sort of variants, but that pic you posted (that I had been looking out for) did not pop up. Thanks for finding it.

>>9477
it's listed under "funny" in Oper.ru, so the implication is it's bullshit (as Goblin served in the Leningrad Militsiya and police before and after 1991)

>>9513
There are no search bubbles on the booru…

>>9516
???? who said anything about the booru

>>4269
>People Don't Read Anymore
<all this time used by other things
Not to mention the impact social media has had in rapidly decreasing attention spans. It's really fucked up, but a prole unable to concentrate or think critically, or educate themselves, is a prole easier to control for porky. Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (https://archive.ph/pofEg).

Video by DemocraticSocialist01 (currently renamed DemocraticMarxist01) debunking anti-Che rhetoric.

>>10045
Excelente

>>4211
FUARKK, the doc's gone, does anyone have a local copy?

>>4211
>bro just access my Google Docs
Uyghur, I don't use this site on places associated with accounts that have my info.>>4467
>>4467
You forgot to mention.
>wood doors
Not all concentration camps had wooden doors, some just used them as stopgap solutions.
>crematories
Not every jew was cremated, most were put in mass graves.

>>4211
the google docs document broke, can any post a functioning one ?

>>9984
Link, because Embed is unreliable here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw_nY-tMuHE

>>4211
MODS!!!!! GOOGLE DOCS CANT BE FOUND!!!!!

>>4211
>>12993
>>12905
>>12893
>>12889
Found the archives of the docs.

>archive.vn:
<https://archive.vn/PbYnq

>google doc (/mobilebasic):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220701000000*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220308013038/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic

>google doc (/edit):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220501000000*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/edit
<http://web.archive.org/web/20220610092355/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/edit


It's odd that the doc is gone, my guess is that the person either delete it, or their account.
Regardless, google plans on deleting accounts that haven't been used in 2 years, (https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1176602395/google-deleting-accounts).

If we're going to educate the masses – not only do we need to be proactive in our understanding of the world, and the information being put forward is as accurate as possible – we need to be uptodate in how the information is spread and how it's saved/archived.

>>18235
>>4218
>>4213
Forgot to include the printed version of the sites.
I thought I printed it before, but whatever.

Anyone has a newer version of the printed webpage, post it.
The archive of the "/edit" version is really hard to print since it gives frequent errors.

>>18236
Forgot to look into, the author linked a reading list as well in the doc.
I found it, along a list of snapshots, and a snapshot to use:
>Original Link
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/

>List of snapshots
<http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/*

>Best snapshot
<http://web.archive.org/web/20210530111820/https://docs.google.com/document/d/18LdrYaUtaBsi_sTERnBV2Xj7szwKUAdO8serQAUCS5A/mobilebasic

>Pdf of doc
<File rel

Every other link (from what I'm skimming) is planly written out in the doc, making it easier to search.
If there's a link, but it's displayed as a sentence, such as the reading list "Socialism in the 21st Century reading list (tons and tons of stuff here too)", just:
>Right click on the link,
>copy and paste it into the url bar
>Search through embedded links with the link, just search for the last occurance of "http"

>>20058
"""funny""" how the main google docs link and also the links in the google docs is """unavailable"""

>>18235
>>18236
>>20058
OP here (and the google docs link poster) thanks for finding the stuff, I didn't realize the doc was dead.

>>4269
Is there another link to read this? My browser just keeps resending the captcha. Unless I'm supposed to solve like 4 of them?? Annoying af

>>20526
It's archive.is going to shit. Try opening it in Tor.

https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=10559

Stormfags create German warcrime fakes to "debunk them" claiming that these fakes are from Nuremburg. It should be noted that it is likely the same situation as the famous "Stalin and Yezhov by a river" photo edit.

Requesting feedback on these debonks. It's supposed to be a resource that's easy to link to for generic questions (instead of wasting time with a back and forth) and easy for non-socialists to understand.

https://wellred.miraheze.org/wiki/Capitalism_is_voluntary
https://wellred.miraheze.org/wiki/Communism_killed_100_million

(Those links may break when the admins eventually change the subdomain to wellred.miraheze.org but that's probably months away.)

>>20835
Make sure to repost the links when subdomain changes.

For the 100 Million link: It provides some good arguments in terms of debate but the "muh stalin ideology not ML" feels like a cop-out and it lacks concrete examples of such assertions being false outright, rather than just logically inconsistent and irrational. Frankly speaking pic rel does a better debunk of the 100 million nonsense regarding Stalin and I think
https://web.archive.org/web/20220105154839/https://leftypedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric:Communism_Killed_100%2B_Million

Did the argument a bit better in places. I'd edit the page using these 2 resources and other stuff such as >>20058 >>18236
To create a more solid basis of argumentation.

As a side note, the presentation of the thesis is too straightforward in the sense that its essentially screaming "NO, WRONG!" which will turn away a person on the fence about the truth. While it is irrational, human psychology can and will reject facts if presented to them in what they perceive to be an antagonistic or condescending manner. It's why debates must use persuasion using logos, ethos and pathos to convince a person that these facts are in fact true (because the average layman is not going to bother following up on sources, especially ones that are lengthy essays or articles in and of themselves unless they're already invested in the subject.

>>20836
Thanks for the feedback comrade.
The presentation is quite blunt and straightforward, a factor of that was wanting to be short, succinct and easy to read, yet covering as many arguments as possible. Another part of the delivery was trying to be factual and formal, like a wiki, which may have gone too far into making it sterile and too assertive for a political topic like this.
Giving it a re-read now (a lot of this was written a while ago), yeah, it's far too blunt, condescending and even a bit arrogant in parts, so I should definitely give it a re-write to soften the edges.
>the "muh stalin ideology not ML" feels like a cop-out
Yeah, it is. I was aiming to quickly counter the mainstream perception that communism is when you are le ebil dictators, by showing that there are other communist ideologies and methods, before claiming Stalin and Mao didn't actually eat all those babies.
I think that a large amount of the target audience would consider an immediate blunt contradiction of their worldview, 'Stalin didn't kill 20 million', the same way they would treat a Holocaust denialist.

Thanks for linking the resources.

>>20837
You're welcome, and I understand what you mean by people being in denial about the Stalin thing, fair point. That's what I meant by persuasion. When I was in high-school (back before leftypol was a thing) my history teacher started a spiel about "le gommies murdering 20-40-60 millioN!" and I challenged her on that, writing a fully sourced essay (that I unfortunately have lost to a crashed hard drive years back) and changed her mind about the entire thing by being as unantagonistic as possible while still sticking to my guns.

The liberal response to the book Late Victorian Holocausts is that the deaths involved are not a damnation of market forces, but rather a "absence of political power" or "adequately broad economic policy" as the New York Times put it. I don't think assaulting that argument per se would be all that productive, and directly citing the insights of Lenin on this topic will be equally unconvincing, so what sources do you all think should be used?

>>20902
The same criticisms comes to a common liberal conclusion about most colonized people's movements. The Palestinians are conservatives, they just want to go back to before they lost. The Native Americans are conservatives, they just want to go back to a world without modern medicine or white people, The Puerto Ricans are conservatives, they just want to go back to pre-European times.

Either I'm solely surrounded by schizopherenics who call themselves liberals or I might have just found a pattern of cope.

>>20902
Asking for details on what they mean by that would probably be more effective than sources for that, but what are you looking for? Citations for an argument?

>>20904
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/18/reviews/010218.18senlt.html

Forgive me, not the NYT but it was hosted on their website and wasn't present while typing the last one, that argument is interesting precisely because of how vague it is. What do the author mean by broad economic policy? A colonial government that "cares?" How would you build that from an actively hostile state that favors the capitalists? Do they mean something liek FEMA or UN Aid?

>>20904
In the real-world example, it was some self-described 'liberal' that described likened the Palestinian liberation movement to the Native American one(and liberation movements in general), saying that they just "want to go back to a time before white people." On neo-colonialism more generally, "why don't the colonies just build trade allies outside the US if they want to succeed instead of crying to the UN?"

>>20906
>"why don't the colonies just build trade allies outside the US if they want to succeed instead of crying to the UN?"
Good opening to ask them about the BRI initiative.
>>20905
The vagueness is the point, I suspect.

>>20835
Quick update: Miraheze finally had a revolution and has completed the subdomain change request, so the links are now live at https://wellred.miraheze.org
I didn't work on improving articles until that change was made to ensure nothing went wrong, and now I have some time to revise them.

Could we add Roots of Rebellion to the list for being a mainstream source that shows that the political dominance of the Bolsheviks was overall reflective of the Russian proletariat's will rather than due to their "disagreeableness" or totalitarian will?

>if you do a communism your children will live in splendor long after the costs have been paid
>if you do capitalism you live in shit and so will your children but at least you didnt pay much
>Russia has better metro system because Joseph Stalin hated freedom and built it without regards to the cost, while New York metro is a product of capitalism and is the result of private-public partnerships built at an acceptable cost
<Democracy makes you rich!
This was vid rel's response to Tucker Carlson's visit and commentary of the Moscow Metro system. Pic 1 is that station and the irony of it all is that this was one of the Metro stations NOT built in Stalin's time, but built a year after his death.

The funny part about this for me is that only a few years ago the narrative was
>Communists are too cheap and always don't have money so that's why all their technology is bad and unsafe and uhhh broken!
To the point where they even had almost that specific line in Stranger Things Season 3, with the obnoxious, snarky black girl that kept repeating Ben Shapiro lines about Capitalism and Freedom.

Which is it? Were the commies spending too much and producing things that will last for centuries and can be considered works of art… or are they cheap retards who never built anything to last and were all soul-less and repressed art?

These are actually two separate prongs of ideological attacks. The first one attack the regulatory-bureaucratic state of the Soviets who are seen as excessive and decadent since they deviated from the social darwinic norms of the Free Market that let people die homeless if it's profitable. The second attack is just general contempt rich countries have against people they perceive to be poorer than them

>>21793
Common fashoid dualities that they switch depending on their attack angle.

>"Stalin was a JudeoBolshevik!"
>"Stalin was an antisemite who wanted to kill Jews!"

>"Lenin was a German agent!"
>"Lenin established a Red Russian Empire and invaded Ukraine!"

>"The USSR invaded Poland with nazi Germany!"
>"The USSR wanted to invade Europe, nazi Germany saved Europe from Bolshevism!"

>"Hierarchy is natural and based!"
>"Kill the Jews on top my fellow Aryans!"

>"The USSR was state capitalist!"
>"The USSR was totalitarian planned economy communism!"

>"The USSR was socially conservative and backwards!"
>"The USSR was morally degenerate and revolutionist that made women equal!"

>"China is based and fascist!"
>"China is a totalitarian Asiatic communist regime threatening the white race!"

>"NATO isn't encircling Russia and China, that's Putinist propaganda!"
>"NATO has encircled Russia in the Baltic, fuck off vatnik!"

>>21888
>Shitty /pol/ infograph placing real and myths on various and often incorrect tiers
What a waste of trip 8s.

Found this youtube short recently where a 'former' US Special Forces soldier talks about how the US populatio isn't ready for a war today. That's true, the US military today is not ready for a large-scale conventional conflict, which is why they aren't ready or willing to engage in all out war with Iran. However the rest of his statements are either ignorance or intentional revisionism.

The phrase "rifle behind every blade of grass" comes from a quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto about the USA, not Japan (although to be fair this statement applied to Japan too). The more blatant revisionism is that "(the USA) won the war in Europe" and that the USA pushed into Berlin… It's one thing for ordinary US citizens to be utterly ignorant of the Soviet role in WW2 (see the RT interview from years back asking ordinary Americans about WW2) but a professional special ops soldier? He's not some jarhead grunt, military courses in the USA do (or did) teach about Soviet battle tactics including during WW2 and most certainly know that the USSR was the one that took Berlin and that the USA didn't enter the land war in Europe until 1944, when the back of Nazi Germany was broken already and they were a dying fascist animal.

Him being visibly proud of the indiscriminate bombing of German civilians by the USAF (and British RAF, though he doesn't mention the Brits over that) which were not only ineffective at stopping Germany but killed more innocent civilians than Nazis is just ghoulish.

His attempt to dismiss moral justification for starting a war is also nonsense. Yes war isn't without brutality, but there's a difference between the inevitable violence, and pointless slaughter.