/edu/ - Education

>>7136
Stalin didn't, it was a plan from the start. Lenin's plan even. Trying to liquidate kulaks in 20s would be suicide, trying to collectivize land from peasants who just recieved that land would also be suicide. The plan was to industrialize, build shitload of tractors and other agricultural machinery and seduce pesants with it into kolkhozes. And that what basically happened.

Trotsky on the other hand pushed for rapid suppression of peasantry by working class and making industry dependant on import from western countries. In the 20s and when the kollectivization started to happen he was like "let kulaks live".

>>7179
>no but when you have an nkvd and a entire bureaucracy to do stuff for you then yeah you could edit some stuff
You can literally say this about ANY government ffs.

Also, fun fact, the infamous bureaucracy was quite small in numbers especially in the 30s. Even late 80s overbureacretized USSR had less bureacrat staff than modern Russia which is both MUCH smaller in terms of population and has computers and internet.

You are retarded.

>>7179
>in my belief the truth is somewhere middle
I say you fucked 10 kids, you say you fucked 0 kids. Truth is somewhere in the middle, so you fucked 5 kids.

>>7186
What a bunch of bullshit. If you actually look at the history of anticommunist propaganda you would notice a trend. In 60s and 70s people like Solzhenitsin were talking about purges as some secret project that no one else knew was happening, in his Archipelago he even often shames people for not noticing this and just enjoying their lives. Later in 90s and further on the propaganda started to sound much different, it was about how almost everybody lived in constant fear and terror. It is simply because in 60s and 70s most pople actually lived through 30s and they would remember living in constant fear, so blatant lies like that weren't used, but in 90s and further on most people didn't livbe through that time, so they could be easily lied to.

Even today you can notice almost schizophrenic tendency of combining those two narratives, like prisoners of death camp Serpantinka (which never existed btw) being dragged away in the night from barracks and shot to death while disguising it by the sound of working tractors. Saying it is insane is like saying that ocean is wet.

>>7173
>reddit spacing
<reddit liberal talking points
try harder
>pic
I have yet to see a single person prove that the proposed "edit" of that photo was actually done in the USSR, in the 1930s and so seamlessly that there is basically a Photoshop level of removal. I want to see some real proofs about this, because the image is a shit meme at this point.

>>7176
>>7175
And also these fucking photos, show me the evidence that these were edited by the USSR and not some 1990s hackjobs. I recall several photos of German soldiers being photoshopped onto the backgrounds of various atrocities and then /pol/ gong around "debunking" them, despite these edits originating on Stormfront as a false flag plant.

GIVE ME PROOFS FAGGOT.

>>7183
>Zemskov, who is often used by "stalinists" as a historian for "defense" of USSR, talks about 10 million people repressed in 1937-38
Zemskov didn't claim that at all LOL. His work precisely debunks that claim completely, are you joking?

>>7192
Wiki says Zemskov provided those figures. Maybe wiki is lying on this one, but Zemskov is a liar and a "stalinist" who admits to all the accusations.

History will benefit hugely from the "it's true if it can be replicated principle" other sciences use to a certain degree. I mean, we totally should disregard all secret documents which are not in the open, because "observations" of them cannot be replicated.

>>7175
Are we sure that people were edited out? Maybe it's the other way around, people being edited in.

>>7193
>Maybe wiki is lying on this one
Perish the thought!

>>7154
Well what do you expect, there's more shit heaped on the USSR by bourgeois historians in the 1920s-1950s than any other state in history.

>>7151
>I am scared that Grover Furr is 100 % correct
Why be scared lol? If you're scared of communism you're scared of yourself.

>>7152
>Even in the Stalinist Gulag, in the most difficult conditions
I really hate when people pain "gulags" (which is already a stupid name) as some fucking death camps or something when in reality they were more progressive than even moder prisons by many metrics. Instead of shaving the poor sod, putting him in a dehumanizing uniform and putting him in a concrete box 5 by 5 with other poor sods like him, the prison camps in USSR allowed relatively free movement, no prison uniform and salary for the work (same as the ordinary workers with slight deduction). For people with lighter sentences there were even "special regime" settlements where they could even fucking marry.

Bump

>>7193
>Zemskov is a liar
Show proofs pls, I have never seen him say this >a "stalinist"
The guy is an anti-communist, I don't see him being Stalinist

>>7200
>The guy is an anti-communist, I don't see him being Stalinist
Not that anon, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt Zemskov. He was curated by Yakovlev and the numbers Zemskov produced from archives by a very lucky coincidence were same numbers that Yakovlev produced several years earlier. Zemskov himself said that Yakovlev was the first to tell about real number of victims. Already a pretty big red flag imo. Second reason is that if you look at the history of death penalties most of them (~700k out of 800+k) happened in 37-38, that is a very big jump, yet for some reason people didn't notice that, there are no material evidence for that, but given the amount of people they had to kill we should be able to find mass graves and stuff, yet there none of this and anticommunist still trying to put Katyn and finns killing red army members as work of soviets. 700k is a VERY big number of people, even dirty wars in Argentina took like 40k people, they only reason why people think it's a "reasonable" number is because they often compare it to insane numbers like 20 millions. Such number of people setntenced to death can't just vanish into the think air. Without solid material evidence about those deaths i will not carelesly assume Zemskov's version.

There are other little things that make me doubt his intellectual honesty and good intentions. When you read his works, they are full of small anticommunist "mistakes" hat proper historian that know russian language and works in russian archives shouldn't commit. For example. He thinks that Katyn was soviet's work and his explanation of events is same as Yakovlev's (insane shit about Burdenko "being mislead" by party, despite Burdenko's comission performing autopsy on victim's bodies and concluding that they were killed in the period when nazis had control of the land). Whe i read his works together with Getty "Victims of the Gulag" he describes kulaks as "well-to-do peasants" which is insanely misleading, since they weren't just peasants who managed to earn good living, but agrarian capitalists who employed other peasants on lands that they took from those peasants through means of usury (practice illegal in USSR obviously) and often employed brute force to those peasants who didn't comply. I can talk a lot about such small things, but it would take too much time and effort, my overall conclusion is that Zemskov is part of the same anticommunist propaganda but with a little bit more "sensible" numbers for people who actually have some common sense and wouldn't believe shit like "20-40-60 millions dead by commies". It is also a good way to present an "alternative" to defenders of communism and make them defend quite the indifensible position. 700k is still shitload of people dead after all.

>>7201
the problem with kulaks was there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak; in one village it could be agrarian capitalists, but in another village it was just peasants who had the most cattle

>>7202
>the problem with kulaks was there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak
That is absolutely not true. Open a dictionary from Russian Empire (like Dal's explanatory dictionary) and read what it means. It's not like soviets invented it.

>>7202
I mean, it's pretty hard to explain anything to people who don't want to listen to your explanation to begin with. That's the real problem with kulaks - kulak defenders refusing to listen. Kulak was a petty exploiter, and that exploitation came in many flavors (because real life). One fucker owned a bridge and took a toll, another one ownerd all the horses, third one bought from noble landowers all the juiciest bits of village's land and made others work for him because others were desperate because they had bad land, etc etc. Trying to squeeze into this category "strong entrepreneurs who dindunothing" is just fucking dishonest. Oh wow, Soviet guides on how to spot kulaks mention them owning more than others! That must mean Soviets were just rounding up everyone who was better off than others! Don't be a retard, please, that's a fantasy logic which doesn't happen in reality. Have some critical thinking, study objective conditions those people lived in.

The Dewey Commission was conducted by a bunch of fawning Trotskyites.

Initially the commission was setup to do a thorough investigation into Trotsky as to whether his guilt at the Moscow Trials was genuine or not.

2 of the commissioners - Carleton Beals and Mauritz Hallgren ended up resigning from the Commission
Carleton Beals accused the commission of being stacked with "adoring trotskyites who spoke in hushed tones"

<Trotsky, of course, had steadfastly denied having had any contacts whatsoever, save for half a dozen letters, with persons of groups in Russia since about 1930. This way hard to swallow. To lay the basis for this questioning, I had to go into Trotsky’s previous secret relations with the outside revolutionary groups when he was a part of the Soviet state. I quizzed him on the secret activities of Borodin in Mexico in 1919-20. The result was a violent explosion. Trotsky called my informants liars, and completely lost his temper. My informant, among others, I advised Trotsky, was Borodin himself. Doctor Dewey hurriedly lifted the session. A junta of the commission was called to take me to task for my questions. Mr. Finerty declared that no commissioner could ask questions on the basis of unproved facts. Doctor Dewey declared that the commission had insisted Trotsky provide the proof of all his assertions. As a matter of fact, Trotsky for hours had been leaving charges of Moscow gold against everyone who disagree with him; frenziedly he accused all such of being G. P. U. agents.

<There was a touch of paranoia to it. The commission had never once asked him for the proof of such statements, and I was not going to be the one put in the position of challenging them. And so, now, once more, Mr. Finerty was eagerly doing Mr. Goldman’s job for him. Avoiding the Tight Spots I mildly suggested to the commission that my word was a good as Trotsky’s. I was willing to go on the stand myself if that would simplify matters. I had published the record of Borodin’s activities in Mexico years ago; I could produce other witnesses. But it was all too patent that the commission would not tolerate anything that might put Trotsky in a tight spot. I finally told Mr. Finerty that, whatever the nature of my questions, I could not be accused, as he could, of being Mr. Trotsky’s lawyer instead of the lawyer of the commission.
<A Trial That Proved Nothing The net result of the labors of the commission? No adequate cross-examination, no examination of the Trotsky archives. A scant day and a half of questioning of Trotsky; mostly about the history of the Russian revolution, his relations with Lenin—this with an eye to his defense against Stalin charges—a lot of question on dialectics and a few scattered unorganized question on terrorism and the Piatakov incident.
< I was unable to find out how these European commissions had been created, who were members of them. I suspected them of being small cliques of Trotsky’s own followers. I was unable to put my seal of approval on the work of our commission in Mexico. I did not wish my name used merely as a sounding board for the doctrines of Trotsky and his followers. Nor did I care to participate in the work of the larger organization, whose methods were not revealed to me, the personnel of which was still a mystery to me. Doubtless, considerable information will be scraped together. But if the commission in Mexico is an example, the selection of the facts will be biased, and their interpretation will mean nothing if trusted to a purely pro-Trotsky clique.
<As for me, a sadder and wiser man, I say, a plague on both their houses.
-Carleton Beals

Mauritz came away from the commission convinced of Trotskys guilt
<Very soon after the first trial, Zinoviev and his associates were executed. It has been asserted that they had been promised lenient treatment if they would for their part publicly accuse Trotsky of having conspired with them to overthrow Stalin and the Soviet government. In truth, it was largely upon this supposition that rested the contention that the first trial was a “frameup”. But now that the men were put to death Trotsky and his adherents declared that they, the defendants, had been “double-crossed”. To the Trotskyites this was further proof of their contention that the first trial had been “framed”. To the disinterested student, however, it might be just as easily have proved the contrary. After all, it is one of the simplest rules of logic that one cannot use a premise to prove a thesis and then use the denial of that premise to prove the same thesis. Logically, therefore, one should have looked elsewhere for an explanation of the executions, and the only other possible explanation was that the men were actually put to death in the regular course of justice and for the single reason that they were guilty of the crimes charges against them. Still it was possible, despite the rise of this counter-doubt, that they have been “double-crossed”.

<Now we have come to the second trial. What is the situation? the men now on trial cannot possibly be under any delusion as to their fate. They must know and they do know that they will be put to death. Despite this they do not hesitate to confess their crimes. Why? The only conceivable answer is that they are guilty. Surely it cannot and will not be argued this time as well that there has been a “deal”, for men like Radek are obviously not so stupid as to believe that they are going to save their lives in that manner after what happened to Kamenev and Zinoviev. It has been said that they have been tortured into confessing. But what greater and more effective torture can there be than knowledge of certain death? In any case, the men in the courtroom have been shown not the slightest evidence of having been tortured or of being under duress. It is said by some that they have been hypnotized into confessing, or that the prosecution, working upon its knowledge of Slav psychology, has somehow trapped these men into confessing deeds of which they are not guilty. For example, the unamity with which the men have been confessing is taken as proof that the confessions are false and have been obtained by some mysterious means. Yet these assertions rest upon no tangible or logical proof whatever. the idea that some inexplicable form of oriental mesmerism has been used is one that sound reason must reject as utterly fantastic. The very unamity of the defendants, far from proving that this trial is also a “frame-up”, appears to me to prove directly the contrary. For if these men are innocent, then certainly at least one of the three dozen, knowing that he faced death in any case, would have blurted out the truth. It is inconceivable that out of this great number of defendants, all should lie when lies would not do one of them any good. But why look beyond the obvious for the truth, why seek in mysticism or in dark magic for facts that are before one’s very nose? Why not accept the plain fact that the men are guilty? And this fact, if accepted with regard to the men now on trial, must also be accepted with regard to the men who were executed after the first trial.
<Possibly Trotsky can support his allegations. He should certainly not be denied the opportunity to produce the proof he says he has. But his reluctance or inability to produce his proof when it is most needed must count against him. Moreover, and this is a point of extreme important, it has to be borne in mind that Trotsky is not a disinterested party. He does not come into court with clean hands. He is a sworn adversary of the Stalin government. It must be presumed, therefore, that he is at least equally as much interested, and in all probability far more interested, in carrying on his campaign to destroy the Stalin government as he is in obtaining abstract justice for himself. Let him state that it is justice alone that he desires, and then let him publicly promise that, in the event he fails to substantiate his allegations against the Soviet government, he will promptly cease his effects to destroy that government. If he refuses to bind himself in this particular, the reasonable man must conclude that he is using his demand for justice solely as a means of enlisting additional support for his campaign against socialism in the Soviet Union. Chronologically, indeed, the evidence on this point is already against him. The outcry against the Moscow trials first came from the Trotskyites. It was they who first raised the charge that Soviet justice was being hamstrung by Stalin. It was not until later that certain disinterested liberals took up the cry. There can be no question the Trotskyites knew, when they shouted “persecution”, that they would win the sympathy and perhaps the active aid of these liberals. And there can be little question that this, rather than justice, was their true objective. Surely if they really believed, as they asserted, that the Stalin government knew no law and no justice, then they could not have expected the liberals to help obtain justice from the Stalin government for them. And as they still maintain this position, it is only logical to suppose that their real purpose in appealing to the liberals was not to win justice for themselves, but to win liberal support for Trotskyism, that is, for Trotsky’s campaign against socialism in the Soviet Union, and to do so in the name of that Holy but meaningless liberal principle known as abstract justice.
-Mauritz Halgren, Why I resigned from the Trotsky Defence Committee

Despite the setup of fawning trotskyites Dewey, when questioning Trotsky, asked Trotsky if he supported terrorism.
Trotsky responded he did not that this was an anti marxist position.

Dewey then asked why Trotsky had appended his name to a document by the Opposition in Soviet Union that the use of terror was justified in certain circumstances - Trotsky is caught completely off guard and waffles on about some nonsense.
The fawning Trotskyite Dewey did not follow up on this.

>>7201
Demonstrate examples, not just statements, I haven't seen this in Zemskov's works. He explicitly (for example) stated that the percentage of gulag prisoners for political reasons did not go above 40% at peak of repressions and usually is much smaller. He also specifically stated that "repressions" had no impact at all on over 97% of the Soviet population of the time. Yakovlev lied plenty but the best of lies are those hidden among truths.
\>>490148
>Open a dictionary
Do you think most people had dictionaries at hand? My Great Grandfather was a ПартОрг for the village after the war, but quit because he was getting orders to confiscate things from "Kulaks"… such as from one of my Great Uncles, who was a "Kulak" for having 2 pigs, never mind that the pigs were basically all they possessed outside of the small 1-room hut they lived in. The orders came from the higher-ups in the nearby city, greedy scum bags behaving like actual Kulaks.

That being said most Kulaks did not get repressed in any form, even confiscation was not a massive policy until later and few were imprisoned (mostly those actively attacking the Soviets).

>>7206
Oh yes, Zemskov "beats" the myth of "half the country was in prisons, and the other half was guarding them" with the myth of 666k people shot and more still imprisoned for "political" crimes, such as telling jokes about Stalin. That's whom I call "stalinists" - such defenders of Stalin who sign under all of Khruschev's slanders, but say "it was good, actually".

>my great grandfather was tasked with dekulakizing great uncle, but he didn't, and he was relieved from his duties
<that means they labelled anyone and everything as kulak!

Doesn't it appear to you that your great grandfather was in cahoots with your great uncles, it was exposed, and both got punished for being kulaks?

>muh two pigs and a small room

We know what two pigs and small rooms kulaks lived in, alright. Imagine fucking believing those scumbags. "Oh no, Soviets imprisoned us for stealing three grains from the kolkhoz fields!" meanwhile, the news article talks about kulaks raiding fields with multiple carts at night, killing a random eyewitness on their way out, who demanded that they stop the crime. Fuck off, gusano

>>7202
>>7206
Was going to go to bed, but this forced me to open everything back-up to post this. None of what you are stating is even how peasants themselves defined Kulaks, and the Soviets utilized peasant input in their analysis of the Kulak issue.

>>7208
Source btw. This paper isn't even written by Marxists or Marxist Leninists, and despite all their statements against Communism and "Stalinism", even they concede that the Kulak was a thing well understood by the peasantry in regards to what exactly one was.

>>7207
The NKVD and local official were perfect in catching kulaks and not 1 person was wrongly accused of being a kulak.
And absolutely no-one took advantage of the mass inspections and wrongly accused his neighbour of being a kualk cuz he fucked his wife last month.

>>7208
>>7209
>Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions, it' not like people could make things up because they didn't correctly understand the definition of Kulak!
Seriously, back the fuck up and think for a moment.

>>7207
>Muh Zemskov is a bad meanie [and more ranting shit having no actual proofs like I asked]
Yeah fuck off faggot.
>hat means they labelled anyone and everything as kulak!
I literally state the opposite later on you actual speedreading faggot. Seriously neck yourself.
>it was exposed, and both got punished for being kulaks
No reddit spacer, given that he didn't get punished at all and neither did my Great Uncle, both fought in the Revolution and calling them "Kulaks" is slander given that they quite literally had NOTHING to their name outside of the shitty hut they lived in. If you look t actual Kulaks this is not the case.
>scumbags
Yeah I'd say catch me outside but you're in another country. If you're actually this retarded to think the Soviet system never got abused by anyone ever, then you're a fucking moron.
>muh news article
That literally has nothing to do with this, "Kulaks in X did this so EVERYONE accused of being a Kulak is a Kulak and did X"
You're the kind of faggot that thinks no-trial executions should be a thing, ain't ya?

>>7210
>And absolutely no-one took advantage of the mass inspections and wrongly accused his neighbour of being a kualk cuz he fucked his wife last month.

Oh yes, NKVD jailed people with accusations as the only proof. Jeez, anticommunist propaganda rooted itself pretty deep into you people, didn't it? Accusation was ALWAYS only a reason for further investigation, never a proof by itself. That's fucking common sense.

>>7211
>Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions

Yes, actually, because Soviets were democratic and run for the people by the people. Thus, official documents and news showed only what people wanted and cared about. This kind of shit is well researched by westerners, actually, even CIA, who always note that accents in Soviet press are "all wrong", if in western media it's all about greatest of us - entrepreneurs and capitalists - then in USSR it's about workers doing worker things, if american movies are about whatever's fashionable at the time, then in USSR it's "boy meets tractor" story.

>>7212
>Muh Zemskov is a bad meanie

Really now?

<Oh yes, Zemskov "beats" the myth of "half the country was in prisons, and the other half was guarding them" with the myth of 666k people shot and more still imprisoned for "political" crimes, such as telling jokes about Stalin. That's whom I call "stalinists" - such defenders of Stalin who sign under all of Khruschev's slanders, but say "it was good, actually".

>I literally state the opposite later on you actual speedreading faggot. Seriously neck yourself.

You first talk about your great-whatevers getting relieved of their party positions and call that unfair, and then toss a bone claiming that you are actually neutral. Come on now, you can do without cheap tricks.

>given that he didn't get punished at all and neither did my Great Uncle

Stopped being PartOrg - but wasn't punished? Oh boy.

>both fought in the Revolution

Yes-yes, everyone fighting in a Revolution were communists and honest people.

>they quite literally had NOTHING to their name outside of the shitty hut they lived in

Well, we don't have anything but your bare words to back that up. My gut feeling is that your great-whatevers were lying to look better in the eyes of their children. It happens all the time.

>If you're actually this retarded to think the Soviet system never got abused by anyone ever, then you're a fucking moron.

First, there's plenty of kulaks who got off the hook with merely a stern talking. Old habits die hard, and oftentimes people act like dumbasses simply because everyone was acting like a dumbass for years before them just like that. Treating workers - and neighbours - as shit is as much a cultural issue as an economic one. Second, if party member got relieved of his membership due to mistake, it was customary to give that membership back.

>That literally has nothing to do with this, "Kulaks in X did this so EVERYONE accused of being a Kulak is a Kulak and did X"

You presented an example of your great-whatevers in exactly this way. Why can you do this, but I can't? Only because you threw me a bone? Stop being so dishonest.

>You're the kind of faggot that thinks no-trial executions should be a thing, ain't ya?

What.

>>7213
finally the burger is revealed lmao

>>7213
>reddit spacing
>literal made up bullshit
>strawman arguments and
>dogmatic faggotry
<ur dishonest
Yeah you've exposed yourself, you can go back to Langley

>>7213
>party member got relieved of his membership
Literally not what was said, you're a professional at making strawmen

>>7213
>official documents and news showed only what people wanted and cared about
And you reveal yourself by going on an irrelevant tangent and not arguing legitimately at all, no-one is talking about the news or movies on worker life, the conversation is about kulaks and the fact that abuses of power could and did happen. If things were so perfectly democratic and flawless then the USSR would never have had Gorbachev and the other fuck ups, now would it?

>>7206
>He explicitly (for example) stated that the percentage of gulag prisoners for political reasons did not go above 40% at peak of repressions and usually is much smaller. He also specifically stated that "repressions" had no impact at all on over 97% of the Soviet population of the time. Yakovlev lied plenty but the best of lies are those hidden among truths.

I demonstrated plenty of examples. It seems you just lack the ability to comprehend the conclusions that follows.

>Do you think most people had dictionaries at hand?

You are either retarded or completely dishonest. What kulak was peasants knew without any dictionaries. And it wasn't just some "well-to-do peasant" it was someone who employed other peasant's labor.

Your example has nothing to do with it, read Stalin's "Головокружение от успехов".

>>7210
You are trying to conflate local officials being corrupt or too overzealous with your asinine statement that "there was never a clear definition who or what is a kulak". Like i said, either retarded or dishonest. Which one?

>>7218
>I demonstrated plenty of examples
No you stated that Zemskov said X and Y lacking any sources or screenshots to that, reddit spacer.
>What kulak was peasants knew without any dictionaries.
Come back after you read a dictionary yourself, and hopefully a couple good books on grammar.
>lack ability to comprehend
Yes I know you do lack this, no need to project it unto others.
>it wasn't just some "well-to-do peasant" it was someone who employed other peasant's labor.
Yeah no shit sherlock, problem is, most peasants in the early USSR were not educated at all even with efforts for literacy. That's why political commissars and Politorgs existed. And no existing Kulak could BE a Politorg because, ya know that goes against proletarian interests. The
>Read Stalin's
Unlike you I actually read those works, in their original language and knowing the context of the writing. It has little to do with this.
>Your example
My example was that on a local basis things like definitions mattered little, what mattered was who made the decisions and on what basis - if a regional overseer was a corrupt piece of shit they could easily claim that "X is a Kulak" and have their property confiscated, this issue is partly why the purges began - a crackdown on corruption in the Soviet system. Regardless of how democratic a system is, the human factor is always there.

>>7219
>ur trying to conflate
not even that anon, but there is nothing to conflate - if there clear definition of a Kulak corrupt and excessive NKVD action would still be within that framework and not as jumbled as it was done, as by admission of the Stalin government itself, which began the process of many unjustly repressed people being pardoned, thanks to the work of Beria. Khruschev went full-retard and and freed every other dissident he could find resulting in morons like Solzhenitsyn getting to 'speak out' or go to the USA and shill their bullshit there.

>>7214
I'm still surprised that people assume that I am a burger. Is my english really this good? Should I feel flattered?

>>7216
Yes-yes, it's him stopping being a party member in protest voluntarily, and not him getting thrown out for refusing to do what's needed to be done against his kulak reliative.

>>7220
You have no arguments axcept "muh reddit spacing" and "ur grammar bad".

>Unlike you I actually read those works, in their original language and knowing the context of the writing. It has little to do with this.
Интересно, а я на каком читал? Если по-английски не понимаешь, давай по-русски объясню, долбоеб. Ты пытаешься выставить случаи коррумпированного поведения или слишком резкой попытки затащить всех в коммунны/колхозы (то что как раз и описано в упомянутой мной статье, хуеплет тупой) как результат того что "никто не знал кто такие кулаки". Четкое определение кулака существовало задолго до большевиков, а крестьяне понимали кто такой кулак на своем опыте. Уж кто-то, а крестьянин разницу между кулаком и средняком знал хорошо.

Изначальный вопрос о том что нормальный историк, который хоть чуть-чуть разбирается в вопросе, никогда не назовет кулаков зажиточными крестьянами. Это может сделать либо неграмотный долбоеб вроде тебя, либо буржуазный пропагандон вроде Земскова. Твой ответ на это "ну никто не знал определение кулака", на что я резонно ответил что знали еще со времен царской России, на что ты начал высирать про то что репрессировали и невинных, поэтому определения не имеют значения, что абсолютный шизофренический бред. По той же логике можно сказать что раз любой аппарат государственного насилия совершает ошибки, то можно сказать что не существует определения преступника и всех надо называть невиновными.

Вывод - ты обосрался и продолжаешь обмазываться говном, отказываясь признавать что это говно.

My conclusion is that you are both retarded and dishonest. Eat shit and die, libtard.

>>7221
You are both idiots pretty much. He is trying to push schizo notion that pesants needed to be literate to know who kulak is. You are trying to pretend that no one was falsely accused of being a kulak.

>>7223
I'm not saying they needed to be literate, I'm saying that they needed to be educated. Peasants mostly did not have copies of Lenin and Marx lying around or dictionaries, and so made decisions based on their knowledge and biases. Moreover, upper management had the power to "decide" that someone was a Kulak without real basis. This was a problem, even if not the majority of the time, which is what I said from the start. That dumbass is just a dogmatist.

>>7221
>him getting thrown out for refusing to do what's needed to be done against his kulak reliative
Бwaaaaah Soviet Authority did no wrong ever, becuse they were perfect beings and not humans
Stop fooling yourself? you sound like those anti-communist morons ranting about how every member of the party was forced to be in the party and anyone who left HAD to be kicked out and imprisoned, and y'know didn't leave voluntarily for one reason or another. It's hilarious how you resemble them actually.

>>7222
I have no arguments to provide for someone who has no arguments to begin with.

На русском Я читал, ЧМО ты нудное. А твоё обяснение говно, как и понятно от безпрерывново и безполезного мата.
> Ты пытаешься выставить случаи коррумпированного поведения или слишком резкой попытки затащить всех в коммунны/колхозы
Ты каким ёбаным местом читал? Жопой? Пиздой?Повторю для идиотов: Я сказал СРАЗУ после того что мне рассказал Прадед что "most Kulaks did not get repressed in any form, even confiscation was not a massive policy until later and few were imprisoned (mostly those actively attacking the Soviets)."
В Переводе на простой язык "Это только одиночный случяй и чясто Кулаков не репрессировали, и были справедливо конфискованы вещи не личных"
Понятно тебе, ирод хера?
>Изначальный вопрос о том что нормальный историк
Я это не оспорил, Японский Бох! Вот почему я повторяю 'Strawman' ты аргументируеш с тем что я и не обсуждал. Я просто сказал
А - У Земскова я не видал то что говорили о нём здесь другие, и просил точных примеров, чего так и не дали
Б - Что народ после Революций не всегда будут чесными, и превел личный премер, и тут же после, подчеркнул что это не все-общяя тенденция была.
>ты начал высирать про то что репрессировали и невинных
А вот ты и лжожь, пре том открыто, так как я не разу об этом не сказал, а наоборот что то что произошло в 37ом было очишение от коррупций и что Берия спас многих кого и в правду посадили без дела (К.П. Роккосовского). Так что читай больше, а не копи-пасти срачи с 2Ч
>По той же логике можно сказать что раз любой аппарат государственного насилия совершает ошибки
Да не ужели БЛЯТЬ? Все таки дошло до жирафа?
>не существует определения преступника и всех надо называть невиновными.
Да нет же предурок ты шизонутый, хватить веши понимать в Черно-Белых окрасках, инфантил ты чёрта!

Вот ты спросил другому, "people assume that I am a burger." Это не потому что хорош на Английском, (даже наоборот, в США плохо пишут) А потому что ты пиздуеш Америкоские пропагандонский линий о "плохом совке" только что это мол хорошо. То что ты здесь напечятал (этот пост на который я сейчяс отвечяю) болие внятны чем ВСЁ написаное ранние.

Вывод здесь один, тебе просто охото пиздеть и нападать на других что б почуствовать себя умным. На верно в детсве во дворе били, или точнее сказать бьют.

My conclusion is you are a blind and ignorant liberal parading in a red coat of dogmatic paint, stay mad fucker.

>>7211
>Official documents totally cover the actual day to day happenings and actions, it' not like people could make things up because they didn't correctly understand the definition of Kulak!
Did you even read what was posted? The peasants were the fucking ones to primarily define who a Kulak was in the first place. Bednota is nothing more then a newspaper.

>>7225
>The peasants were the fucking ones to primarily define who a Kulak was in the first place
Kulak is defined in the Russian IMPERIAL Dictionary, written by and for the upper class, they dictated definitions. Kulak means "fist" as in the fist that locally oppressed peasants. This oppression is not actually defined in concrete materialist/dialectical manner by peasantry - as it essentially comes to "those that have more than everyone else" in LAYMAN'S terms that most people understood. The problem is… defining more than everyone else and the honesty of someone claiming that X person has much more than others. Like I said in the beginning, generally the dekulakization efforts ere successful and sincere, but there is always a human factor, and that includes in the government, which was my point.

>>7226
>Kulak means "fist" as in the fist that locally oppressed peasants. This oppression is not actually defined in concrete materialist/dialectical manner by peasantry - as it essentially comes to "those that have more than everyone else" in LAYMAN'S terms that most people understood. The problem is… defining more than everyone else and the honesty of someone claiming that X person has much more than others.
Except that's not how peasants defined it at all, and they explicitly rejected the idea that a Kulak was merely a person that owned more then everyone else. You are correct that most of the peasantry lack a materialist analysis of Kulak relations, but what they did have was their own largely shared "moral economy". Peasants writing in to newspapers (of which letters arrived in the hundreds) were very, very clear that wealth was not what defined a Kulak. No one had any issue with a "thrifty" farmer who had accumulated for himself a second cow or a nicer hut by having improved his harvest through ingenuity or personal labour, or even by a strategic marriage to another peasants daughter for the dowry; after all, to be "thrifty" was something seen as only proper in the peasant moral economy, and no one could very well point fingers when they were all seeking to find ways to improve their own standard of living and the output of their farms. As long as it was gained "honestly", such things were fine. What was not accepted though was those farmers who obtained their wealth "dishonestly", the difference between "honest" and "dishonest" being the use of exploited hired labour as opposed to labour done by their own hands or that of fairly compensated peasantry, with what quantifies this being gone over in screenshot #4. Kulaks were practically entirely defined by their usurious deal making by the general peasantry.

>>7227
>Kulaks were practically entirely defined by their usurious deal making by the general peasantry.

Yes, and that usurious behavior was supplied materially by owning the majority of means of production/'commanding heights" in a village. So, owning a bridge and taking a tall, or owning best strips of land (because first noble landowners did that to keep their power over peasantry, and then kulaks as well), or owning all the horses, or owning a windmill, or shit like that. From this economic power came political one, so first kolkhozes were enforced by kulaks themselves who jumped onto the opportunity to enlarge their property through underhanded means - namely, "collectivize" stuff, and then become chairmen over collectivized property. Of course, they didn't collectivize their private property, only their neighbours'. Next, famine cycles were an important part of kulaks' power.

Usury came in the form of giving out to their neighbours grain for consumption/seeds, and in return kulaks demanded either many times more grain sacks, or those neighbours working kulak's fields, either way it was obscene amount of wealth transferred to them, while peasants were forced into unescapable poverty.

Also, kulaks, due to their economic peculiarities, were firmly against development of productive forces. They didn't buy tractors because tractors were both pricey and too productive - if kulaks implemented thme on their fields, their neighbours will be free to develop their own fields, and thus the loss of control over the village. You'd think this is nonsense from kulak's point of view, but then look at all the repressive measures police rains down on people trying to meme vertical farming their own food, or upside-down farming, or how they are very hostile to people trying to grow food on unused public property, and so on and so forth. Tractors and fertilizers replace vast amounts of labor required without them, and since only labor creates value, this in the long term destroys profit rate. So, NOT upgrading from horse power to tractor power is a totally sensible thing as it secures both profit rate and perpetual poverty, and thus free labor, for kulaks.

>>7225
>>7226
http://istmat.info/files/uploads/50056/kto_takoy_kulak.pdf

For russian speakers here.

>>7227
>they explicitly rejected the idea that a Kulak was merely a person that owned more then everyone else.
No, the Soviets rejectd that notion. The average peasant of the time, not yet versed in Marx and Lenin and relying on assigned officials to teach them this, had simpler concepts of Kulaks and their role. You can argue details all you like, but the reality is, Russian peasants of the late 20s and early 30s were ignorant, out of no fault of their own, if you live in a system repressing education for the people, even efforts like Lenin's push for literacy would not fix this immediately and many areas remained ignorant. Otherwise the USSR wouldn't have had to combat grain hoarding by Kulaks and ordinary peasants during 1932 either.
>Peasants writing in newspapers
>hundreds
recall that the USSR comprised over 100 MILLION people, even if 1000 people collectively all wrote letters that is still less than 10% of the population. Again you have to rely on the personal honesty of accusers
>No one had any issue with a "thrifty" farmer who had accumulated for himself a second cow or a nicer hut by having improved his harvest through ingenuity or personal labour
Because suddenly the existence of the USSR abolished things like envy, jealousy and grudges? The early Soviet government constantly battled opportunism and other disingenuous behavior and not for no reason.
>to be "thrifty" was something seen as only proper in the peasant moral economy
That doesn't mean that this excludes someone else disliking it or wanting to possess what others have. This is a common theme of Russian literature - jealousy and hate and envy leading brother to kill brother or take advantage of a situation to get rid of someone and get their things. Soviet media includes this too, and they attempted to address it constantly.
>farmers who obtained their wealth "dishonestly"
>they're Kulaks
Yes I agree, I'm just pointing out that this is vague enough that people may take advantage of it for personal reasons. Additionally, city officials could often be corrupt and opportunist. It's statistically impossible for this to not occur, even if it is minimized, as I pointed out.

So are we done here?

>>7230
>Russian peasants of the late 20s and early 30s were ignorant

Those peasants were educated enough to end capitalism in Russia. Do you think they didn't understand what kulak - or a capitalist - meant? Come on now. They lived alongside those shits.

>Otherwise the USSR wouldn't have had to combat grain hoarding by Kulaks and ordinary peasants during 1932 either.

Ridiculous claim. Hoarding the grain is economically viable, it happened in kolkhozes, sovkhozes, farmers did it, kulaks did it as well.

>Yes I agree, I'm just pointing out that this is vague enough that people may take advantage of it for personal reasons

You stretch this "may" into a blanket dismissal of every attempt to combat kulakism as a jealousy, envy and grudges.

> It's statistically impossible for this to not occur

It's even more statistically - and logically, and managerially, or logistically - impossible for all of those repressions against kulaks being just cases of jealousy. Again, letters to authorities by themselves NEVER were a proof of a crime, it's not fuckng middle ages and witch hunts, where accusers got money for reporting! It's SOCIALIST COUNTRY, that was painfully aware of history of such things, and they did goddamn make sure that letters are investigated, but not used as a proof. Because that's how a sane person would organize statecraft.

>>7232
>Those peasants were educated enough to end capitalism in Russia
Imagine being this idiotic. As of the revolution 76% of the population could not read at all and had 0 formal education. So none could form written definitions or read said definitions, they could only know something by word of mouth.
>they didn't understand what kulak - or a capitalist - meant?
To the generation that fought the Revolution it got defined in Layman's terms; the rich oppressor, any further details got forgotten by most. You seem to think 1917 is a unique revolution, Peasant Revolts in Russia had been going on for centuries, repeatedly every decade, but Kulaks at the time were small fry to who they fought.
>those shits
Those shits usually were peasants themselves at one point.
>Ridiculous claim
No it is not, the Soviet government and any honest literature on the famine of 1932 pointed out that people did try to hoard or procure grain because they feared starvation. Again peasants fought the revolution for material benefits for themselves, to improve their lives and the lives of their kin, not because of "ideals of communism" that only a few people in Russia were literate enough to be even aware of. See pic 1
>oarding the grain is economically viable
No it is not, not in a famine, to repeat thngs I said beforee The government’s job in a famine is to freeze everybody in place; gather what food there is; ration it; distribute it. And guard the seed grain, that's what it did. hoarding grain sabotages this effort and sabotage economic production by preventing a balanced assessment of productivity.
>stretch this "may"
No I do not. You clearly have not spent a lot of time interacting with other people more than casually IRL. You clearly don't understand or truly empathize with
>blanket dismissal of every attempt to combat kulakism
I specifically said otherwise, cope more. Also Kulakism doesn't exist, it's not an ideology you twat, it's a name for a specific type of bourg in a specific country.
>impossible for all of those repressions against kulaks being just cases of jealousy
Yes, that's exactly hat I said, you contrarian ninny.
>bla bla bla 'The Soviet system investigated everything perfectly and people never made mistakes or acted corruptly'
I have to wonder have you ever been to a Russian village, let alone lived in one. People are not perfect beings by far, and in the 1920s-1930s people were rougher and tougher; ready to do anything to improve their lives, because they had to be to survive in the Russian Empire, and it takes time to change this, time that had not yet passed.
Moreover many non-proletarian city folk of the time tended to be opportunists that rose in political ranks and could abuse power. This did occur, the fact that these occurrences exists provoked 1937's purges in the first place, to end this nonsense for a while.