Vladimir Lenin's criticisms of capitalism apply perfectly to modern American society

[RRR3]

The man was a prophet.


•He wrote a book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In this book, Lenin explained how monopoly capitalism led to imperialism. He keenly identified the capitalist tendency towards expansion being motivated by a desire to find workers who would work for cheaper and could be more easily exploited. We see this today in the sweatshops American companies operate overseas.

•He was an unabashed atheist, and strongly believed that religion should never be forced upon anyone or influence political affairs. We have seen the failure of America’s “Christian-centric” society, as such matters as birth control, abortion, and the rights of the LGBT community have become political issues. Indeed, there have been countless cases of politicians who frequently cite their religious beliefs as motivators for their actions. Considering how few respectable politicians we have, this further bolsters Lenin’s view on the corrupting nature of religion.

•He was a firm believer in violent revolutionary tactics, and this is usually the main criticism of him, along with accusations that he was a dictator (which are specious, as he was not in complete control of the Soviet Union in the way that Joseph Stalin was). He defended this by arguing that the middle class “practiced terror against the workers, soldiers and peasants in the interests of a small group of landowners and bankers, whereas the Soviet regime applies decisive measures against landowners, plunderers and their accomplices in the interests of the workers, soldiers and peasants” and that “the state is an institution built up for the sake of exercising violence. Previously, this violence was exercised by a handful of moneybags over the entire people; now we want.to organise violence in the interests of the people”. In contemporary American society, we still see the evil system of capitalism driving the bourgeoisie to act on behalf of the ruling class and continue the oppression of the workers. Widespread income inequality, a lack of healthcare, housing and secondary educations being available to OBSCENE amounts of Americans who need and/or want them are all acts of violence. Violence in retribution, Lenin argued, would be justice. Whether you agree with his belief on this matter or not, it’s hard to deny how his analysis of early 20th century Russia still applies to modern American society.

•He detested anti-Semitism, and argued that capitalist propaganda was responsible for such sentiments. We have been seeing an increasing number of Americans on the far right who speak about a vast global Jewish conspiracy, in which a gang of billionaire “Zionists” controls the globe. Adherents to such disgusting beliefs have been welcomed and encouraged by such far right, intensely capitalistic politicians as Donald Trump, Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon (see the large swath of neo-Nazis who support said politicians and march on behalf of them in such violent demonstrations as Charlottesville).

[RRR3]

(continued)


•He decried the so called democracies of capitalist nations such as the United States. He argued that such nations were only superficially democratic, which were chiefly concerned with preserving the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. He opined that: “[The United States is a system in which there are] spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties [controlled by] astute multimillionaires [that exploit the workers]”. Such a claim would have been considered highly radical in America at the time, but we now have seen mainstream politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez make similar statements, which have been met with support from many amongst the American working class.

•He condemned classical liberalism, arguing that no one is truly free when they are still being exploited by capitalism. Such criticisms apply to both of the two main political parties in America; they both claim to be supportive of individual freedom, but consistently suppress legislation that would protect workers, create greater income equality or mandate healthcare, housing and secondary education be provided to the entirety of the population.

•He considered national borders an archaic notion, and believed that nationalism was a distraction from class struggle. While I personally do not consider open borders to be a feasible policy in a capitalist society like America’s, it’s worth considering how politicians such as Trump have used nationalism to divide the working class and distract them from their true enemy, which speaks to Lenin’s point. Additionally, his view on how nationalism is used by the elite to divide us and distract us from the real issue (inequality between the classes) also applies to race, gender, and other group classifications that are highlighted by the ruling class as a distraction.

[Im Still Ballin]

He makes some solid points.

[RRR3]

He makes some solid points.
Definitely. He was a great man.

[Stanley Kobrick]

very interesting points

[ZenMaster]

I wonder how long it'll be before we have people on ISH referring to Hitler and Goebels as prophets as well.

You're all crazy for believing in and promoting communism.

I've had two girlfriends from countries that used to be part of the USSR and I'm dating a third one now - they all say the same things. The grandfather of one of them was even in prison for two years, all he did was write an anti communist message with chalk on a street in Prague.

Have you ever been to a former USSR country RRR3? I've been to a few of them, it's not pretty. I thoroughly hope you wake up one day and realize you were promoting nasty things in your 20s or however old you are, these threads are just disgusting.

[RRR3]

very interesting points
Thanks. The 4chan gang is desperately avoiding this, but the truth has to be put out there.

[RRR3]

I wonder how long it'll be before we have people on ISH referring to Hitler and Goebels as prophets as well.

You're all crazy for believing in and promoting communism.

I've had two girlfriends from countries that used to be part of the USSR and I'm dating a third one now - they all say the same things. The grandfather of one of them was even in prison for two years, all he did was write an anti communist message with chalk on a street in Prague.

Have you ever been to a former USSR country RRR3? I've been to a few of them, it's not pretty. I thoroughly hope you wake up one day and realize you were promoting nasty things in your 20s or however old you are, these threads are just disgusting.
Do you have any rebuttals to what Lenin said or the point I am making about how his statements apply to contemporary American society? Or are you just going to spuriously compare him to Hitler and imply I am on the same level as a Nazi apologist?

[Doomsday Dallas]

•He detested anti-Semitism, and argued that capitalist propaganda was responsible for such sentiments. We have been seeing an increasing number of Americans on the far right who speak about a vast global Jewish conspiracy, in which a gang of billionaire “Zionists” controls the globe. Adherents to such disgusting beliefs have been welcomed and encouraged by such far right, intensely capitalistic politicians as Donald Trump, Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon (see the large swath of neo-Nazis who support said politicians and march on behalf of them in such violent demonstrations as Charlottesville).


that's a conspiracy that is written in the Bible... you want to blame something or someone for that conspiracy theory, you can start with the Bible.

[Doomsday Dallas]

•He detested anti-Semitism, and argued that capitalist propaganda was responsible for such sentiments.

capitalist propaganda... yea, that must be the reason.

[ZenMaster]

Do you have any rebuttals to what Lenin said or the point I am making about how his statements apply to contemporary American society? Or are you just going to spuriously compare him to Hitler and imply I am on the same level as a Nazi apologist?

I don't need to rebute anything. Some of it might sound good on paper, but history has not only shown that it doesn't work, but also that millions of people have lost their life due to living in this ideology, and many more have lived horrible lives because of it. This is not your only thread either, you've promoted someone as a communist folk hero or whatever your words of choice were.

Again, take a trip around the eastern block, talk to people there and judge for yourself. You could also try and explain them why communism is good and why they should go back to it, but you'd probably end up leaving from there on crutches. That's because the people in eastern Europe are aware that communism is equal to nazism when it comes to destroying the lives of citizens, because they had to see it with their own eyes.

[Patrick Chewing]

OP hates Confederate traitors, but has no problem supporting Anti-American Communists that would snap his neck in two seconds. The irony.

[RRR3]

So what we have here is the ISH conservative fam once again unable to refute anything in my OP, and resorting to screeching about “Communist man bad”. Interdasting.

[ZenMaster]

So what we have here is the ISH conservative fam once again unable to refute anything in my OP, and resorting to screeching about “Communist man bad”. Interdasting.

If you believe this, which I'm not totally against by the way(but a discussion about whether or not religion is good is bigger subject to cover), then how do you feel about how they live e.g in Middle Eastern countries where the vast religious majority are Muslims?


•He was an unabashed atheist, and strongly believed that religion should never be forced upon anyone or influence political affairs. We have seen the failure of America’s “Christian-centric” society, as such matters as birth control, abortion, and the rights of the LGBT community have become political issues. Indeed, there have been countless cases of politicians who frequently cite their religious beliefs as motivators for their actions. Considering how few respectable politicians we have, this further bolsters Lenin’s view on the corrupting nature of religion.

[RRR3]

If you believe this, which I'm not totally against by the way(but a discussion about whether or not religion is good is bigger subject to cover), then how do you feel about how they live e.g in Middle Eastern countries where the vast religious majority are Muslims?
I won’t pretend to be familiar with every middle eastern country, but I despise the ones that are theocratic and oppressive such as Saudi Arabia.

[tpols]

I wonder how long it'll be before we have people on ISH referring to Hitler and Goebels as prophets as well.

You're all crazy for believing in and promoting communism.

I've had two girlfriends from countries that used to be part of the USSR and I'm dating a third one now - they all say the same things. The grandfather of one of them was even in prison for two years, all he did was write an anti communist message with chalk on a street in Prague.

Have you ever been to a former USSR country RRR3? I've been to a few of them, it's not pretty. I thoroughly hope you wake up one day and realize you were promoting nasty things in your 20s or however old you are, these threads are just disgusting.

You do realize it was just as bad before communism right? people were dirt poor and starving while the nobles lived in glamorous palaces. Thats what started the revolution. Look at what the capitalistic British did to the Irish. Fact is people suck and especially people at the top. They more often than not tend to abuse their power once they get it no matter what system of government is in charge.

[bladefd]

You do realize it was just as bad before communism right? people were dirt poor and starving while the nobles lived in glamorous palaces. Thats what started the revolution. Look at what the capitalistic British did to the Irish. Fact is people suck and especially people at the top. They more often than not tend to abuse their power once they get it no matter what system of government is in charge.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a system issue but people issue. Unfortunately, we have no full-proof system. Best we can do is democracy (term limits+voting) and checks & balances. You also always want balance in capitalism rather than completely hands-off, running amok.

[RRR3]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a system issue but people issue. Unfortunately, we have no full-proof system. Best we can do is democracy (term limits+voting) and checks & balances. You also always want balance in capitalism rather than completely hands-off, running amok.
Democracy under capitalism isn't actual demcoracy. Read the OP

[tpols]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's not a system issue but people issue. Unfortunately, we have no full-proof system. Best we can do is democracy (term limits+voting) and checks & balances. You also always want balance in capitalism rather than completely hands-off, running amok.

i agree.

Lenin's quotes about democracy being a farce and it just being two puppet parties fake warring it out with an elite business class behind the scenes really controlling everything was absolutely spot on. We do not live in a democracy. Our choices are two geriatric men, one whose a nut, and the other who literally, should be in a nursing home. He was so right... so long ago. goes to show you how history just keeps repeating itself over and over.

[TheMan]

OP hates Confederate traitors, but has no problem supporting Anti-American Communists that would snap his neck in two seconds. The irony.

It's even more ironic that you stan a guy who is terrified/admires/brown noses a former USSR communist KGB agent.

[ArbitraryWater]

So what we have here is the ISH conservative fam once again unable to refute anything in my OP, and resorting to screeching about “Communist man bad”. Interdasting.

Why would it need refuting? History has refuted it.

[RRR3]

Why would it need refuting? History has refuted it.
Everything he said that is listed in my OP has been proven to be the truth and you can't deny any of it.

[ArbitraryWater]

Everything he said that is listed in my OP has been proven to be the truth and you can't deny any of it.

Okay, then why make this thread?

Cool, nothing of which you say has any fallible grounds it can be criticized on.

Mature stance to take.

[RRR3]

Okay, then why make this thread?

Cool, nothing of which you say has any fallible grounds it can be criticized on.

Mature stance to take.
Considering the fact that no one has even ATTEMPTED to refute the OP, I don't think that's an unreasonable position for me to take. If you'd like to try and refute it, I'm happy to have that conversation with you.

[Rolando]

Props to you RRR3. Great thread.

This quote alone is so right on the money:

•He decried the so called democracies of capitalist nations such as the United States. He argued that such nations were only superficially democratic, which were chiefly concerned with preserving the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. He opined that: “[The United States is a system in which there are] spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties [controlled by] astute multimillionaires [that exploit the workers]”. Such a claim would have been considered highly radical in America at the time, but we now have seen mainstream politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez make similar statements, which have been met with support from many amongst the American working class.

[RRR3]

Props to you RRR3. Great thread.

This quote alone is so right on the money:

•He decried the so called democracies of capitalist nations such as the United States. He argued that such nations were only superficially democratic, which were chiefly concerned with preserving the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. He opined that: “[The United States is a system in which there are] spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties [controlled by] astute multimillionaires [that exploit the workers]”. Such a claim would have been considered highly radical in America at the time, but we now have seen mainstream politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez make similar statements, which have been met with support from many amongst the American working class.
Thanks man. It's truly shocking how accurate his assessments of American politics continue to be almost a century after his death.

[tpols]

spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties [controlled by] astute multimillionaires [that exploit the workers]”.

imagine the fit of laughter Lenin would have watching a Trump debate.

:roll:

[RRR3]

imagine the fit of laughter Lenin would have watching a Trump debate.

:roll:
He wouldn't be surprised that the likes of Trump and Biden are our options. He understood the failures of capitalism insanely well.

[Patrick Chewing]

It's even more ironic that you stan a guy who is terrified/admires/brown noses a former USSR communist KGB agent.

It would be funny if this was true, but it isn't. In your twisted world, what's the alternative? Go to war with Russia? Every other President prior to Trump has coddled and avoided talking tough with Putin. But that's OK in your world cause they're not Trump.

How did that Russian collusion narrative end up for you boys??

[CelticBaller]

Still doing better than Soviet russia

[tpols]

Still doing better than Soviet russia

you have a very simple mind.

[RRR3]

Are any of you going to even try and attempt to refute the OP or just repeat "Communist man bad" like the mindless sheep you are? I asked ArbitraryWater to try and refute the OP, and he cowardly fled from the thread.

[Manny98]

Capitalism has it's flaws but it's still 100x better than communism where they take away your basic human rights and put you in concentration camps for saying anything that goes against the government regime

See China

[CelticBaller]

you have a very simple mind.

Ok

[RRR3]

Capitalism has it's flaws but it's still 100x better than communism where they take away your basic human rights and put you in concentration camps for saying anything that goes against the government regime

See China
No one inherently has any rights. Rights are based upon our concept of morality. Even so, Americans lack many things that would generally be defined as rights in other “successful” capitalist nations.

[ralph_i_el]

I wonder how long it'll be before we have people on ISH referring to Hitler and Goebels as prophets as well.

You're all crazy for believing in and promoting communism.

I've had two girlfriends from countries that used to be part of the USSR and I'm dating a third one now - they all say the same things. The grandfather of one of them was even in prison for two years, all he did was write an anti communist message with chalk on a street in Prague.

Have you ever been to a former USSR country RRR3? I've been to a few of them, it's not pretty. I thoroughly hope you wake up one day and realize you were promoting nasty things in your 20s or however old you are, these threads are just disgusting.

All those countries were way shittier before communism. By pretty much every measure the institution of communism led to a huge increase in the standard of living. However, the bourgeoisie were really the only people represented in journalism and literature, so they are vastly over-represented in the stories about communism. An literate ex-serf isn't getting their story told in the international press.

A good friend of mine is a quarter Chinese. His mom's father had to flee the communists in China. I asked her what he did, and she said "He didn't work. He lived in a palace". I don't really feel sorry for that guy. His story got told, but the hundreds of peasants who used to pay him rents? Their story doesn't get told in the West.

[ralph_i_el]

Capitalism has it's flaws but it's still 100x better than communism where they take away your basic human rights and put you in concentration camps for saying anything that goes against the government regime

See China

Did they have basic human rights in China or the Russian Empire before communism?

I'll save you a google....no. What was there to take away?

Before the revolution in Russia, nobles would carry a whip as a sign of their status. Peasants were often beaten for small infractions. Serfdom was still a thing in some places. Press and speech were heavily censored. Assembly wasn't a right. Cops would violently break up strikes. I could go on for a while. This is what the communists were fighting against.

I do know that the communists considered economic rights, like the right to an education, job, and housing. We still don't consider some of that stuff as a "right" in the West.

[ralph_i_el]

Why would it need refuting? History has refuted it.

Lol that's like saying liberal democracy was refuted in 1848. Communism hasn't been around that long bro, give it some time.

[ralph_i_el]

I don't need to rebute anything. Some of it might sound good on paper, but history has not only shown that it doesn't work, but also that millions of people have lost their life due to living in this ideology, and many more have lived horrible lives because of it. This is not your only thread either, you've promoted someone as a communist folk hero or whatever your words of choice were.
.

Why don't you take a trip around former UK colonies and ask them how capitalism worked out for them? Millions of people starve to death annually in capitalist countries.

Everyone wants to talk about the Ukraine Famine, nobody wants to talk about the Bengali Famine :confusedshrug:

America killed millions in Korea and Vietnam in the name of capitalism. Slavery was done in the name of capitalism (Slaves WERE capital). Go read about the Belgian Congo if you want to see what it looks like to run an entire country as a capitalist enterprise.

Global capitalism is based on supply chains that currently use child slavery.

[DoctorP]

Marx would be completely opposed to Lenin's violent, revolutionary tactics.

[DoctorP]

Why don't you take a trip around former UK colonies and ask them how capitalism worked out for them? Millions of people starve to death annually in capitalist countries.

Everyone wants to talk about the Ukraine Famine, nobody wants to talk about the Bengali Famine :confusedshrug:

America killed millions in Korea and Vietnam in the name of capitalism. Slavery was done in the name of capitalism (Slaves WERE capital). Go read about the Belgian Congo if you want to see what it looks like to run an entire country as a capitalist enterprise.

Global capitalism is based on supply chains that currently use child slavery.

indeed. maybe the problem isn't capitalism, maybe it's colonialism and white supremacy.

look at what black supremacy has done to the NBA... Marc Gasol gets no respect


https://i.ibb.co/bLRKPh0/nba.jpg

[RRR3]

Why don't you take a trip around former UK colonies and ask them how capitalism worked out for them? Millions of people starve to death annually in capitalist countries.

Everyone wants to talk about the Ukraine Famine, nobody wants to talk about the Bengali Famine :confusedshrug:

America killed millions in Korea and Vietnam in the name of capitalism. Slavery was done in the name of capitalism (Slaves WERE capital). Go read about the Belgian Congo if you want to see what it looks like to run an entire country as a capitalist enterprise.

Global capitalism is based on supply chains that currently use child slavery.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Manny98]

Did they have basic human rights in China or the Russian Empire before communism?

I'll save you a google....no. What was there to take away?

Before the revolution in Russia, nobles would carry a whip as a sign of their status. Peasants were often beaten for small infractions. Serfdom was still a thing in some places. Press and speech were heavily censored. Assembly wasn't a right. Cops would violently break up strikes. I could go on for a while. This is what the communists were fighting against.

I do know that the communists considered economic rights, like the right to an education, job, and housing. We still don't consider some of that stuff as a "right" in the West.

No China was way better before the communist authoritarians took over

[RRR3]

No China was way better before the communist authoritarians took over
Imperial China or China between 1912 and 1949?

[bladefd]

Democracy under capitalism isn't actual demcoracy. Read the OP

That's why you keep capitalism under control rather than go completely hands-free to let it run amok. You want a balance.

Lenin was a powerful leader, had some intelligent ideas & improved conditions after the Russian revolution, but ultimately history judges him in a negative light. He was an authoritarian douchebag, who is no different than Xi. I wouldn't want him running my country. Violence breeds more violence.

[ralph_i_el]

Marx would be completely opposed to Lenin's violent, revolutionary tactics.

"there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains."

Both of those are Marx quotes. The second is the end of the Communist Manifesto. You're wrong.

[ralph_i_el]

. Violence breeds more violence.

But we rarely consider the mundane violence and force necessary to maintain the status quo. This brings to mind a passage by Mark Twain:

"THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

[DoctorP]

"there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains."

Both of those are Marx quotes. The second is the end of the Communist Manifesto. You're wrong.


You are right. Marx was no saint and not without contradiction. :applause:

[ralph_i_el]

You are right. Marx was no saint and not without contradiction. :applause:

Advocating for violence doesn't necessarily mean you are bad. Violence can be justified.

Like my second post said, we ignore the violence inherent to maintaining the system.

Land ownership itself is based on violence. I can be violently ejected from land I don't own, and all the land is owned. I need some land to live on, so in a roundabout way I am forced into service by the system. While this isn't as violent as simply capturing me and forcing me to work as a slave, I still am facing violence and depredation if I do not work for the owners of capital.

This is all not even mentioning the past violence that was used to aquire the land in the first place.

Would you say a slave isn't a saint if he were to violently overthrow his master? His master probably didn't use much overt violence to get him to work, but the threat of violence had him working 10,000 hours in the field.

Not that any of this really hurts me. I come from rich folks. I'm sitting in a brand new beach house right now with a nice glass of bourbon.

[DoctorP]

the solution is simple:

labeling violence as "fascism".


non-violent protests like workers walk-outs... oh wait robots

[ralph_i_el]

the solution is simple:

labeling violence as "fascism".


non-violent protests like workers walk-outs... oh wait robots

The word "fascism" is already pretty clearly defined.

[DoctorP]

The word "fascism" is already pretty clearly defined.

yeah, but broadening it more to mean exactly this

[ralph_i_el]

yeah, but broadening it more to mean exactly this

Exactly what?

[Im Still Ballin]

OP opened a can of woke ass and gassed the bigots straight out the mother****ing thread.

[Whoah10115]

Not all smart men are great men. Don't romanticize so much.

But there are lessons to learn.

[Charlie Sheen]

(continued)


•He decried the so called democracies of capitalist nations such as the United States. He argued that such nations were only superficially democratic, which were chiefly concerned with preserving the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. He opined that: “[The United States is a system in which there are] spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties [controlled by] astute multimillionaires [that exploit the workers]”. Such a claim would have been considered highly radical in America at the time, but we now have seen mainstream politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez make similar statements, which have been met with support from many amongst the American working class.

•He condemned classical liberalism, arguing that no one is truly free when they are still being exploited by capitalism. Such criticisms apply to both of the two main political parties in America; they both claim to be supportive of individual freedom, but consistently suppress legislation that would protect workers, create greater income equality or mandate healthcare, housing and secondary education be provided to the entirety of the population.



You're saying American government has failed the public by allowing the costs of healthcare to outpace workers wages. Your solution is to install more power into that same government? Why? You like what AOC and Bernie have to say?

I mentioned this in the other thread you made when I asked if you had ever been on food stamps, unemployment, section 8 housing, or needed medical treatment from a community health center because you're uninsured. Anything the government gives you, the government can take away. That's one reason why it sucks. Another is the difficulty in breaking away from government assistance. There's an income level right above the cutoff for government assistance where nobody wants to live.

Communism isn't promoting everyone below you to the lifestyle you enjoy. The refrigerators of the American people won't be as full as the one in your parents home because communism.

[warriorfan]

OP opened a can of woke ass and gassed the bigots straight out the mother****ing thread.

:lol

[ralph_i_el]

You're saying American government has failed the public by allowing the costs of healthcare to outpace workers wages. Your solution is to install more power into that same government? Why? You like what AOC and Bernie have to say?

I mentioned this in the other thread you made when I asked if you had ever been on food stamps, unemployment, section 8 housing, or needed medical treatment from a community health center because you're uninsured. Anything the government gives you, the government can take away. That's one reason why it sucks. Another is the difficulty in breaking away from government assistance. There's an income level right above the cutoff for government assistance where nobody wants to live.

Communism isn't promoting everyone below you to the lifestyle you enjoy. The refrigerators of the American people won't be as full as the one in your parents home because communism.

Anything a business can give you, a business can take away. The difference is, we theoretically get to have democratic input on the government's actions.

The solution is to somehow get a government in power that actually has the goal of representing the interests of workers.

Right now the Republicans (who tell you government services don't work) represent the owners of capital, with the goal of strengthening their power and exploiting workers more effectively. The Democrats want to arbitrate between workers and capital, so as to maintain their privilege with the minimum of concessions to workers. So we have a party that represents capital, a party that wants to mediate between capital and workers, and nobody that represents workers.

Here's an example of how "the government doesn't work" is used by these people. "Public schools are bad! We should defund them!"...then they send their kids to private schools, or make up the difference in funding with boosters for the schools in the rich part of the county. Rich kids get their good education, rich families get their low taxes, and they can tell everyone "public school is bad, the government can't do anything right!"

Government services, properly funded and managed by people who want them to succeed, work well.

A historical example of a government program being mismanaged on purpose to discredit the idea.

Louis Auguste Blanqui was an early socialist leader in France. One of his ideas was "The Right to Work", where unemployed people would be given work by the government. After the July Monarchy was overthrown, the Liberal Republicans had to give Blanqui a position, but they specifically didn't let him lead the workhouses, because the bourgeois elites were against socialist ideas generally. Instead they gave control of the project to someone who wanted it to fail. To do this, he refused to take on contracts for meaningful work (so no one could point to the workhouses as providing a valuable service), refused to take on work for more than 10k men (about 40k wanted work), and paid men who didn't get a job that day 75% of a subsistence wage. This means that both the workers and the society at large began to have a negative view of the institution of workhouses. Government doesn't work (if you don't want it to).

Whenever someone is running for election telling you the government services don't work, they're telling you that they will make sure these services don't work.

[Charlie Sheen]

Labor can organize and use the tools of collective bargaining. That was the point I was trying to make with government can take away anything that government gives you. Unions aren't a perfect solution. They are layered with corruption. My position is colored by my own experience where union jobs have afforded me a lifestyle I wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not rich by any stretch, but I'm not suffering either.

I do believe government programs work. What I think doesn't work is the transition away from government assistance. As someone who was on SNAP for a year, I'm going to tell you, I wanted the opportunity to afford my own shit more than I wanted free groceries. I got there through a union job. I've been labor all my life. I'm not management. I have a solid appreciation for the assistance I received when I couldn't support myself. I don't want to end or cut funding to those programs. This discussion about socialism imo overlooks the one factor that made the greatest difference in me realizing financial independence -- wages.

[ralph_i_el]

Labor can organize and use the tools of collective bargaining. That was the point I was trying to make with government can take away anything that government gives you. Unions aren't a perfect solution. They are layered with corruption. My position is colored by my own experience where union jobs have afforded me a lifestyle I wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not rich by any stretch, but I'm not suffering either.

I do believe government programs work. What I think doesn't work is the transition away from government assistance. As someone who was on SNAP for a year, I'm going to tell you, I wanted the opportunity to afford my own shit more than I wanted free groceries. I got there through a union job. I've been labor all my life. I'm not management. I have a solid appreciation for the assistance I received when I couldn't support myself. I don't want to end or cut funding to those programs. This discussion about socialism imo overlooks the one factor that made the greatest difference in me realizing financial independence -- wages.

This 100%
Socialism isn't about government programs, but a government run for the benefit of workers would have a strong safety net.

Some socialist theorists are actually against lobbying for government assistance programs in capitalist states, because they improve the condition of workers enough to stop class-based uprisings.

Socialism is about workers controlling the economy and enjoying the fruits of their labor. As it stands now, more than half the product of our economy goes to the owners of capital instead of workers. This trend of capital getting a larger share has been going on since Reagan.

I'm a public-sector worker, and so unions have been illegal for me since before I was born (in my state). They just legalized public sector unions, but only with the approval of your local government (which ain't happening lol).

[Horatio33]

Capitalism has it's flaws but it's still 100x better than communism where they take away your basic human rights and put you in concentration camps for saying anything that goes against the government regime

See China

Germany wasn't a communist country, but they imprisoned, enslaved and murdered millions of citizens in the 1930/40s. Fascism doesn't arrive all of a sudden, it arrives slowly, gradually and turns its citizens against each other. Then the power is taken away and then atrocities occur.

Look at Trump and him threatening journalists. That's what dictators want. No dissent, no opposition voices. No free speech. Just do whatever the leaders say or else. And they brainwash the citizens against the citizens own best interests, so the dictator can amass more power, and no one is there to journal this abuse of power, as in one way or another, the journalists speaking out on the dismantling of democracy have been silenced. And then its too late.

[Hawker]

Germany wasn't a communist country, but they imprisoned, enslaved and murdered millions of citizens in the 1930/40s. Fascism doesn't arrive all of a sudden, it arrives slowly, gradually and turns its citizens against each other. Then the power is taken away and then atrocities occur.

Look at Trump and him threatening journalists. That's what dictators want. No dissent, no opposition voices. No free speech. Just do whatever the leaders say or else. And they brainwash the citizens against the citizens own best interests, so the dictator can amass more power, and no one is there to journal this abuse of power, as in one way or another, the journalists speaking out on the dismantling of democracy have been silenced. And then its too late.

Trump ain’t the one out canceling people bro. Lots of European countries have banned hate speech. Guess that’s a sign of being a dictator.

[Horatio33]

Trump ain’t the one out canceling people bro. Lots of European countries have banned hate speech. Guess that’s a sign of being a dictator.

You say that like banning hate speech is a bad thing. Do you want more hate in your life?

Trump might not be cancelling people, but he is doing what Hitler and other dictators have done and that is tell the people that the press are telling lies and not to trust them if fascism had a playbook turning the public against the press would be in the top five.

Trump wants us squabbling with each other over statues and cancel culture. Takes our eyes away from what he is doing to the electoral system, what his government is doing to the financial system, and to human rights. But you carry on getting upset over an American football team debating whether they should change their name.

[Hawker]

You say that like banning hate speech is a bad thing. Do you want more hate in your life?

Trump might not be cancelling people, but he is doing what Hitler and other dictators have done and that is tell the people that the press are telling lies and not to trust them if fascism had a playbook turning the public against the press would be in the top five.

Trump wants us squabbling with each other over statues and cancel culture. Takes our eyes away from what he is doing to the electoral system, what his government is doing to the financial system, and to human rights. But you carry on getting upset over an American football team debating whether they should change their name.

Banning hate speech is not free speech. You don’t get to whine about free speech and be in favor of banning “hate” speech. What is considered hateful is completely arbitrary and up to the individual. It’s undefined and therefore makes no sense to make a law against it. That is fascist.

The media isn’t to be trusted - nobody needs Trump to tell them that.

[Horatio33]

Banning hate speech is not free speech. You don’t get to whine about free speech and be in favor of banning “hate” speech. What is considered hateful is completely arbitrary and up to the individual. It’s undefined and therefore makes no sense to make a law against it. That is fascist.

The media isn’t to be trusted - nobody needs Trump to tell them that.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That's what right wing free speech warriors don't understand. You can say what you like, but if its racist, sexist, homophobic or offensive to disabilities and there are laws saying you can't say racist, sexist, homophobic or discriminatory language, the law is the consequence.

All I see is the right wing free speech warriors are angry because the can't be racist, sexist or homophobic. So they start acting like children that have had a toy taken off them.

[ralph_i_el]

People getting "cancelled" online is such a silly thing to worry about.

You should worry about journalists getting beat up and arrested at protests if you're worried about free speech.

ICE was just given national security designations that prevent us from getting information about it with the Freedom of Information Act. That's something to worry about, especially because they are ordering a ton of AR's...

You know that ICE doesn't have to follow the same physical and mental qualifications that the rest of federal law enforcement have to pass. They also have had a huge increase in the number of officers under Trump. Looks to me like they are building up a paramilitary force that is loyal to Trump and empowered to disappear people.

[Hawker]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That's what right wing free speech warriors don't understand. You can say what you like, but if its racist, sexist, homophobic or offensive to disabilities and there are laws saying you can't say racist, sexist, homophobic or discriminatory language, the law is the consequence.

All I see is the right wing free speech warriors are angry because the can't be racist, sexist or homophobic. So they start acting like children that have had a toy taken off them.

The law shouldn’t be the consequence. Again, you don’t get to whine about journalists when you want to ban speech you disagree with. Sounds like you want only one opinion to be accepted and deem anything that goes against it as (choose liberal buzzword here).

[Hawker]

People getting "cancelled" online is such a silly thing to worry about.

You should worry about journalists getting beat up and arrested at protests if you're worried about free speech.

ICE was just given national security designations that prevent us from getting information about it with the Freedom of Information Act. That's something to worry about, especially because they are ordering a ton of AR's...

You know that ICE doesn't have to follow the same physical and mental qualifications that the rest of federal law enforcement have to pass. They also have had a huge increase in the number of officers under Trump. Looks to me like they are building up a paramilitary force that is loyal to Trump and empowered to disappear people.

We can worry about both.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Can't disagree with any of this.

[Horatio33]

The law shouldn’t be the consequence. Again, you don’t get to whine about journalists when you want to ban speech you disagree with. Sounds like you want only one opinion to be accepted and deem anything that goes against it as (choose liberal buzzword here).

So you're saying you should be allowed to be racist, sexist or homophobic without consequences? We shouldnt have laws to protect those people?

[FKAri]

So you're saying you should be allowed to be racist, sexist or homophobic without consequences? We shouldnt have laws to protect those people?

He's saying there shouldn't be explicit laws against hate speech because after all who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not. It's easy to point to something as hate speech but there are grey areas and where you draw the line is difficult and leads to a slippery slope. I tend to agree with his stance but I also agree that it can create a dangerous environment that can breed hate and lies. The alternative is a lot worse though.

[RRR3]

He's saying there shouldn't be explicit laws against hate speech because after all who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not. It's easy to point to something as hate speech but there are grey areas and where you draw the line is difficult and leads to a slippery slope. I tend to agree with his stance but I also agree that it can create a dangerous environment that can breed hate and lies. The alternative is a lot worse though.
I also agree. I didn’t use to, but I’ve come to realize censorship is really stupid. It’s one thing for say Jeff to ban trolls (it’s his site he can do what he wants) but it’s another when you start dictating what people can say. Liberals are really getting out of control with the language policing. Are some words offensive because of their meanings and history? Of course. But I still support the right of anyone to say those words. But I’ll definitely look the other way when they get their ass kicked for saying it :lol

[coin24]

So the fat nerdy virgin reads a book at college, suddenly has all the answers to the worlds problems, righto:oldlol:

[RRR3]

Cashew...

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

The man was a prophet.


•He wrote a book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In this book, Lenin explained how monopoly capitalism led to imperialism. He keenly identified the capitalist tendency towards expansion being motivated by a desire to find workers who would work for cheaper and could be more easily exploited. We see this today in the sweatshops American companies operate overseas.

•He was an unabashed atheist, and strongly believed that religion should never be forced upon anyone or influence political affairs. We have seen the failure of America’s “Christian-centric” society, as such matters as birth control, abortion, and the rights of the LGBT community have become political issues. Indeed, there have been countless cases of politicians who frequently cite their religious beliefs as motivators for their actions. Considering how few respectable politicians we have, this further bolsters Lenin’s view on the corrupting nature of religion.

•He was a firm believer in violent revolutionary tactics, and this is usually the main criticism of him, along with accusations that he was a dictator (which are specious, as he was not in complete control of the Soviet Union in the way that Joseph Stalin was). He defended this by arguing that the middle class “practiced terror against the workers, soldiers and peasants in the interests of a small group of landowners and bankers, whereas the Soviet regime applies decisive measures against landowners, plunderers and their accomplices in the interests of the workers, soldiers and peasants” and that “the state is an institution built up for the sake of exercising violence. Previously, this violence was exercised by a handful of moneybags over the entire people; now we want.to organise violence in the interests of the people”. In contemporary American society, we still see the evil system of capitalism driving the bourgeoisie to act on behalf of the ruling class and continue the oppression of the workers. Widespread income inequality, a lack of healthcare, housing and secondary educations being available to OBSCENE amounts of Americans who need and/or want them are all acts of violence. Violence in retribution, Lenin argued, would be justice. Whether you agree with his belief on this matter or not, it’s hard to deny how his analysis of early 20th century Russia still applies to modern American society.

•He detested anti-Semitism, and argued that capitalist propaganda was responsible for such sentiments. We have been seeing an increasing number of Americans on the far right who speak about a vast global Jewish conspiracy, in which a gang of billionaire “Zionists” controls the globe. Adherents to such disgusting beliefs have been welcomed and encouraged by such far right, intensely capitalistic politicians as Donald Trump, Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon (see the large swath of neo-Nazis who support said politicians and march on behalf of them in such violent demonstrations as Charlottesville).

Lenin is not a prophet.

[RRR3]

Lenin is not a prophet.
Well not anymore since he’s dead. But he was.

[Rooster]

Well not anymore since he’s dead. But he was.

:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm

In his short reign of terror, the only success he could find before his death was reverting back to capitalism to save his country from famine .

[The Real JW]

I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. It categorically destroys communist style marxism, yet asks in the ascent chapter, that following the “by any means necessary” mantra, you really mean at the cost of others. He argues that the ends can never truly justify the means, and that the journey is as important as the outcome. That if we as humans and collective society follow this doctrine then we simply extend the evils of past generations into the future. The book can be used as a critique of post-modernism (even being post modern itself), but also could be used as a critique against modernist marxist ideology.

It promotes the idea of individual self responsibility and accountability, that society is nothing but a group of individuals, that the choice of good and evil runs through every man.

[ralph_i_el]

I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. It categorically destroys communist style marxism, yet asks in the ascent chapter, that following the “by any means necessary” mantra, you really mean at the cost of others. He argues that the ends can never truly justify the means, and that the journey is as important as the outcome. That if we as humans and collective society follow this doctrine then we simply extend the evils of past generations into the future. The book can be used as a critique of post-modernism (even being post modern itself), but also could be used as a critique against modernist marxist ideology.

It promotes the idea of individual self responsibility and accountability, that society is nothing but a group of individuals, that the choice of good and evil runs through every man.

I would argue that labor camps are not inherent to socialism, Marxism, or communism. The Soviets were far from the first to do this. Nobody is arguing that it was a good thing. It was a thing that happened during the most brutally violent 2/3 generation stretch in western history. As well a know, violence begets violence. The violence of the aristocracy, WW1, and WW2 contributed to a system where individual human life was not valued. Under different conditions, you will see different results.

You know the bit about the "ends justifying the means" applies to the US and the West in general, right? The status quo of the current world order is only maintained by constant, low intensity violence and oppression.

By that logic, is any fight for freedom ethical?

[Sulico]

Socialism and Comunism have few critical flaws that will lead to the same terrible results, always.


In free society, people who work harder and are smarter have more stuff. Since socialism takes this stuff away and gives it to lazy and stupid, smart and hardworking inevitably start to rebel. Thats why socialism needs censorship, propaganda, indoctrination, mass murders etc. to keep people in check. Every socialist country had those things and always will, there is no way for it to keep power without them.


Since communism takes private property away, people not working for their own business or land, they work for government property which absolutely takes motivation to work hard away. That leads to economic crysis 100% of the time.


Every socialist regime uses group hierarchy and groups on the bottom of this hierarchy are repressed.
USSR had proletariat on the top and bourgeoisie on the bottom whitch led to murder and exile of latter.
Faschist Germany had aryans on top and jews, slavs, etc. on bottom which led to murder and exile of latter.
And unlike in capitalism, there is no way for you to migrate from bottom group to top one. You inherit your group status at birth.


Other than mass murders, censorship, repressions and economic crysis, great system.

We already see glimpses of socialist movements in USA in the last decade or two. Censorship and propaganda are creeping in with press becoming partisan and PC and cancel cultures on the rise. People like Bernie Sanders that want to "redistribute wealth" getting ton of support, and it's not a long road from redistribution to nationalization.
And, ofcourse, identity politics, which is good old socialism 101. Lenin hated rich beacuse they opressed working class, Hitler hated jews because they opressed germans, US socialist hates "cis-white-male' because they opress black/gay/women.
Same old stuff we saw before, and if I were american I would be really worried beacuse it absoltely can lead to the same old results.

[Shogon]

Thanks. The 4chan gang is desperately avoiding this, but the truth has to be put out there.

Hopefully for your sake you're in with the trolling of the 2 previous accounts you replied to, otherwise... well... strike that... either way... you're stupid. LOL.

[Shogon]

You do realize it was just as bad before communism right? people were dirt poor and starving while the nobles lived in glamorous palaces. Thats what started the revolution. Look at what the capitalistic British did to the Irish. Fact is people suck and especially people at the top. They more often than not tend to abuse their power once they get it no matter what system of government is in charge.

This is absolutely, unequivocally correct... which is why the only thing normal people can do is influence the government to be reduced in size. That's it.

Some government is needed, but we have long since passed the point of what is necessary and we go further and further into the freedom hindering bullshit territory with each passing day.

People think capitalism has failed... no... government has failed. The free market is the closest thing we've had to a good solution to the fact that human beings are imperfect. Life isn't fair. However, government has stepped up and made sure that the market is not free... and most of you are hell bent on increasing the scope of government. It's lunacy.

Democracies don't work because the average IQ is around 99. That's extremely low. Most of you reading this have an IQ of 110 or less! You're stupid and you don't even know it! It's not your fault, I blame you not... but shut the **** up and get out of the way in the mean time.

[Shogon]

Imagine this... you have an IQ north of 130 and you try talking to/explaining stuff to/debating people that have an IQ of 100 (which is most of you)... mental retardation is capped at around an IQ of 70 or whatever, last time I checked... which means the gap between you and me is the same gap between you and a retard. Proportionately speaking, not exactly... but it's close enough.

If you argue with a retard, who's the retarded one? I suppose that makes me retarded also, to be honest.

[tpols]

Imagine this... you have an IQ north of 130 and you try talking to/explaining stuff to/debating people that have an IQ of 100 (which is most of you)... mental retardation is capped at around an IQ of 70 or whatever, last time I checked... which means the gap between you and me is the same gap between you and a retard. Proportionately speaking, not exactly... but it's close enough.

If you argue with a retard, who's the retarded one? I suppose that makes me retarded also, to be honest.

we're glad you finally came around pal.

[RRR3]

Shogon’s IQ is like 105 and dude thinks he’s a genius.

[iamgine]

All systems have flaws and need to be balanced with other systems and solid foundation in order to survive. The US had that but currently it's being challenged by morons who doesn't see that America is a great country with the least amount of racism. Morons who has never traveled outside the country. Black folks need to travel to Japan or Korea to see how openly discriminated they are.

But I hope this is just a phase and the silent majority will realize what they have to lose by being silent and start fighting back the loud minority. The world need a strong America as a balance. How glad would Russia and China to see the US crumble. China would easily invade Taiwan and take anything else it desires. So would Russia.

[Sulico]

All systems have flaws and need to be balanced with other systems and solid foundation in order to survive. The US had that but currently it's being challenged by morons who doesn't see that America is a great country with the least amount of racism. Morons who has never traveled outside the country. Black folks need to travel to Japan or Korea to see how openly discriminated they are.

But I hope this is just a phase and the silent majority will realize what they have to lose by being silent and start fighting back the loud minority. The world need a strong America as a balance. How glad would Russia and China to see the US crumble. China would easily invade Taiwan and take anything else it desires. So would Russia.

Oh god. Spare us with this BS.
There is no country USA can act morally superior to, other than maybe Germany and Japan in the mid 20th century.
And it's no coincidence both of those are US main allies now.
Nobody doing any invasions other than US

[ItsMillerTime]

Imagine this... you have an IQ north of 130 and you try talking to/explaining stuff to/debating people that have an IQ of 100 (which is most of you)... mental retardation is capped at around an IQ of 70 or whatever, last time I checked... which means the gap between you and me is the same gap between you and a retard. Proportionately speaking, not exactly... but it's close enough.

If you argue with a retard, who's the retarded one? I suppose that makes me retarded also, to be honest.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just a few days ago this dude tried to compare a woman's right over her fetus isn't hers just because it's inside her body, just like if a dick is inside her body it's not her right either. IQ north of 130. LMAO.

[Shogon]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just a few days ago this dude tried to compare a woman's right over her fetus isn't hers just because it's inside her body, just like if a dick is inside her body it's not her right either. IQ north of 130. LMAO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5NRGlamFSE&t=27

[Rocket]

The OP really needs to get out of his parents house and move to a communist utopia. Why would he keep mooching off of his parents when utopia is waiting? Please leave this terrible capitalist nation ASAP. Life will not get any easier for freeloaders in Trump's second term so he should move now. I bet his parents would pay for the ticket. They must be so proud of him. :facepalm

[warriorfan]

I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. It categorically destroys communist style marxism, yet asks in the ascent chapter, that following the “by any means necessary” mantra, you really mean at the cost of others. He argues that the ends can never truly justify the means, and that the journey is as important as the outcome. That if we as humans and collective society follow this doctrine then we simply extend the evils of past generations into the future. The book can be used as a critique of post-modernism (even being post modern itself), but also could be used as a critique against modernist marxist ideology.

It promotes the idea of individual self responsibility and accountability, that society is nothing but a group of individuals, that the choice of good and evil runs through every man.

Great post. This book was a real eye opener for me. It’s scary stuff. Everyone, especially RRR3 needs to read this.

[warriorfan]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just a few days ago this dude tried to compare a woman's right over her fetus isn't hers just because it's inside her body, just like if a dick is inside her body it's not her right either. IQ north of 130. LMAO.

A fetus is it’s own person you idiot. It’s not some quasi extension of the mother. You act like it’s the same as a woman removing a wart or cutting her hair.

[Derka]

Its important to understand that Lenin the Revolutionary Writer was not the same person as Lenin the Head of the SFSR.

Had Lenin and the Bolsheviks not embraced capitalism with the 1922 New Economic Plan, they all likely would have ended up executed at the hands of the Russian people. The NEP quite literally dragged Russia out of backwardness after nearly a decade of constant war (WW1, the Russian Civil War, the Polish War) and famine (1921). The NEP stabilized the ruble, restored agricultural and industrial production to pre-WW1 levels, increased foreign investment in Russian enterprise and increased overall satisfaction among the peasants and the business class.

Capitalism saving the Soviet Union before Stalin took over and commenced its prolonged death is probably one of history's great ironies that no one talks about.

Edit: I'll grant that Lenin said that he considered the NEP as the final stage of capitalism that Russia needed to go through before fully embracing socialism. I would counter by offering that Lenin was a pragmatist in his chairmanship days.

[iamgine]

Oh god. Spare us with this BS.
There is no country USA can act morally superior to, other than maybe Germany and Japan in the mid 20th century.
And it's no coincidence both of those are US main allies now.
Nobody doing any invasions other than US
No one's talking about moral superiority though, it's just facts :confusedshrug:

[RRR3]

The OP really needs to get out of his parents house and move to a communist utopia. Why would he keep mooching off of his parents when utopia is waiting? Please leave this terrible capitalist nation ASAP. Life will not get any easier for freeloaders in Trump's second term so he should move now. I bet his parents would pay for the ticket. They must be so proud of him. :facepalm
You can’t refute a single thing in the OP so you resort to personal attacks. Tissue soft.

[Lebron23]

I read about him because I am a sociology major. Socialism is getting a bad reputations because it was abused by dictators.

[ralph_i_el]

Its important to understand that Lenin the Revolutionary Writer was not the same person as Lenin the Head of the SFSR.

Had Lenin and the Bolsheviks not embraced capitalism with the 1922 New Economic Plan, they all likely would have ended up executed at the hands of the Russian people. The NEP quite literally dragged Russia out of backwardness after nearly a decade of constant war (WW1, the Russian Civil War, the Polish War) and famine (1921). The NEP stabilized the ruble, restored agricultural and industrial production to pre-WW1 levels, increased foreign investment in Russian enterprise and increased overall satisfaction among the peasants and the business class.

Capitalism saving the Soviet Union before Stalin took over and commenced its prolonged death is probably one of history's great ironies that no one talks about.

Edit: I'll grant that Lenin said that he considered the NEP as the final stage of capitalism that Russia needed to go through before fully embracing socialism. I would counter by offering that Lenin was a pragmatist in his chairmanship days.

Marx said that capitalism was a necessary stage of development before socialism. Most people back then thought that Germany would be the first country to have a socialist revolution, and the revolution would go outwards from that. In many ways it is unfortunate that it ended up being Russia, due in large part to the conditions during WW1. Russia had not embraced mass industrialization by that point, and the aristocracy was still the dominant economic force in the country.

[Cleverness]

He keenly identified the capitalist tendency towards expansion being motivated by a desire to find workers who would work for cheaper and could be more easily exploited. We see this today in the sweatshops American companies operate overseas.

•He was an unabashed atheist, and strongly believed that religion should never be forced upon anyone or influence political affairs. We have seen the failure of America’s “Christian-centric” society, as such matters as birth control, abortion, and the rights of the LGBT community have become political issues.

•He was a firm believer in violent revolutionary tactics He defended this by arguing that the middle class “practiced terror against the workers, soldiers and peasants in the interests of a small group of landowners and bankers, whereas the Soviet regime applies decisive measures against landowners, plunderers and their accomplices in the interests of the workers, soldiers and peasants” and that “the state is an institution built up for the sake of exercising violence. Previously, this violence was exercised by a handful of moneybags over the entire people; now we want.to organise violence in the interests of the people”. In contemporary American society, we still see the evil system of capitalism driving the bourgeoisie to act on behalf of the ruling class and continue the oppression of the workers. Widespread income inequality, a lack of healthcare, housing and secondary educations being available to OBSCENE amounts of Americans who need and/or want them are all acts of violence. Violence in retribution, Lenin argued, would be justice. Whether you agree with his belief on this matter or not, it’s hard to deny how his analysis of early 20th century Russia still applies to modern American society.

-a business that finds people who will do the same work for cheaper is not a bad thing. unless these people are working against their will, that isn't exploitation. lmk when you have a better idea than people voluntarily agreeing with each other.

-the US has been a beacon for freedom of religion.

the birth control issue is whether or not private companies have to pay for it by law. it shouldn't be written into law private companies have to pay for things their employees (who aren't forced to work there btw) would like.

Abortion? again, people think it's wrong to murder babies and furthermore force those people via taxes to pay for it, regardless of religion. just bc a religion is against murder doesn't mean anyone against murder (w/ taxpayer dollars) is also religious.

lgbtqiapkxyz have the same rights as everyone else.

-what does capitalism mean to you? i dont think it means what you think it means. failures of big gov't is not equal to capitalism. in fact, just the opposite.

-""In contemporary American society, we still see the evil system of capitalism driving the bourgeoisie to act on behalf of the ruling class and continue the oppression of the workers. "

can you elaborate? for ex, i know a lot of business owners who started w/ nothing and now they make six figures. are they bourgeoisie of the ruling class? when do they become that?