Video: Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever

[Stevicus]

My posts are mostly invisible to socialists.
If you missed it all the prior times, another
post won't work.

I've seen your attempts at responses, but they just don't really address anything except for whatever you decide is relevant.

Let's switch gears a bit. Let's see how flexible your argumentative skills can be (and I'm not expecting much, so no pressure).

Suppose the USA was the only capitalist country left in the world. Every other country has turned full blown communist. We have hostile neighbors, Communist Canuckistan and Communist Mexico (and Communist Cuba, of course).

There are widespread reports of underground Communist cells operating within the US, with the goal of sabotaging US industries and attempting to foment political instability. No more imports, free trade, or global markets to exploit, since the rest of the world has isolated us and cut us off. We are all alone against the entire world. Moreover, the "labor shortages" capitalists complain about today would be more acute, as the lower-paid workers would be heading towards greener pastures and better treatment just across the border.

Considering how paranoid our government has been on communist activities in far-flung areas of the world, as well as our experience during various red scares, how do you think they would respond in a situation where every country in the world is against us, and there is active, armed, well-supplied, and violent pro-communist operatives working within the US trying to undermine the regime?

Under such circumstances, would the US remain the "land of the free"? Don't you think there would be some measure of authoritarianism (beyond things like the Patriot Act or the Espionage Act or other actual laws they've passed)?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen your attempts at responses...

I've nothing to add.

 

[Augustus]

Which empires didn't see the same benefits? It seems pretty clear when looking over the historical progression from the time of Columbus' voyage and the period of Exploration and Colonization, which increased exponentially for mostly economic reasons. The vast lands and the resources they provided most certainly increased the wealth of the nations which benefited and exploited those resources.

I can't see how anyone could deny it.

Many parts of empires were not particularly profitable or created losses.

You have cost of empire to deduct form the profits, and the cost of empire was often borne by the state while profits were often captured by companies and individuals.

But the world has always been full of empires, and European Empires became so successful because of industrialisaton rather than simply being empires that relied on resource extraction.

So while Empires did increase wealth, and there were benefits for industrialisation from Empire this was not the primary cause of European dominance. Even parts of Europe without significant colonial possessions industrialised more effectively than non-European Empires

 

[Augustus]

Well, there is some truth to that. After Munich, Stalin seemingly saw the West as too weak and ineffectual to stand up to Hitler. Perhaps he believed that by making a temporary alliance of convenience with Hitler, Germany's attentions would be focused on the West, which would weaken all of his enemies. What he probably didn't expect was for France to fold up so quickly.

He helped arm the Nazis because he wanted them to destabilise the capitalist nations. He colluded with them to invade Poland.

He saw advantage in an alliance.

No need to pretend the effete West made him do this.

The bottom line is that the Western capitalists have been fanatically against socialism in every single instance and actively tried to attack it and sabotage it in any and every way possible.

Who do you think provided the technological and operation knowhow for Soviet industrialisation?

The great successes of Soviet industrialisation relied on capitalists and capitalism. So how can you say they sabotaged it at every point? Arguably, capitalists made the Soviet Union into a superpower.

Engineers were invited from abroad, many well-known companies, such as Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG and General Electric, were involved in the work and carried out deliveries of modern equipment, a significant part of the equipment models produced in those years at Soviet factories, were copies or modifications of foreign analogues (for example, a Fordson tractor assembled at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant).

In February 1930, between Amtorg and Albert Kahn, Inc., a firm of American architect Albert Kahn, an agreement was signed, according to which Kahn's firm became the chief consultant of the Soviet government on industrial construction and received a package of orders for the construction of industrial enterprises worth $2 billion (about $250 billion in prices of our time). This company has provided construction of more than 500 industrial facilities in the Soviet Union.[23][24][25]

A branch of Albert Kahn, Inc. was opened in Moscow under the name "Gosproektstroy". Its leader was Moritz Kahn, brother of the head of the company. It employed 25 leading American engineers and about 2,500 Soviet employees. At that time it was the largest architectural bureau in the world. During the three years of the existence of Gosproektroy, more than 4,000 Soviet architects, engineers and technicians who have studied the American experience passed through it. The Moscow Office of Heavy Machinery, a branch of the German company Demag, also worked in Moscow.

The firm of Albert Kahn played the role of coordinator between the Soviet customer and hundreds of Western companies that supplied equipment and advised the construction of individual objects. Thus, the technological project of the Nizhny Novgorod Automobile Plant was completed by Ford, the construction project by the American company Austin Motor Company. Construction of the 1st State Bearing Plant in Moscow, which was designed by Kahn, was carried out with the technical assistance of the Italian company RIV.

The Stalingrad Tractor Plant, designed by Kahn in 1930, was originally built in the United States, and then was unmounted, transported to the Soviet Union and assembled under the supervision of American engineers. It was equipped with the equipment of more than 80 American engineering companies and several German firms.

American hydrobuilder Hugh Cooper became the chief consultant for the construction of the DneproGES, hydro turbines for which were purchased from General Electric and Newport News Shipbuilding.[26]

The Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant was designed by the American firm Arthur G. McKee and Co., which also supervised its construction. A standard blast furnace for this and all other steel mills of the industrialisation period was developed by the Chicago-based Freyn Engineering Co

Industrialization in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

He helped arm the Nazis because he wanted them to destabilise the capitalist nations. He colluded with them to invade Poland.

He saw advantage in an alliance.

No need to pretend the effete West made him do this.

There's speculation that if the West had not folded up at Munich and declared war instead, the Soviets would have joined the Allied side. Hitler was the one who pressed Stalin to make a deal, as the British guarantee to Poland put him between a rock and a hard place.

The main reason for Appeasement was not because Britain or France trusted Hitler, but because Hitler had pulled ahead of them in the arms race (specifically in air power), and they simply ready to fight against Germany, not yet anyway. By September 1939, they were still ill-prepared, but a little better off than they were the previous year.

Who do you think provided the technological and operation knowhow for Soviet industrialisation?

The great successes of Soviet industrialisation relied on capitalists and capitalism. So how can you say they sabotaged it at every point? Arguably, capitalists made the Soviet Union into a superpower.

Sure, a few capitalists were engaged in the processes of industrialization, but only a few. The article you linked mentions Albert Kahn, although his nephew (also named Albert Kahn: Albert E. Kahn - Wikipedia) wrote a book entitled "The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia"
: The Great Conspiracy: Michael Sayers and Albert E. Kahn: Amazon.com: Books

Stalin also made a speech at the end of the first Five Year Plan: The Results of the First Five-Year Plan

Stalin himself mentioned that counter-revolutionaries were attempting to destroy the Soviet state:


It has led to this : the last remnants of the moribund classes—the private manufacturers and their servitors, the private traders and their henchmen, the former nobles and priests the kulaks and kulak agents, the former Whiteguard officers and police officials, policemen and gendarmes, all sorts of bourgeois intellectuals of a chauvinist type, and all other anti-Soviet elements—have been thrown out of their groove.

Thrown out of their groove, and scattered over the whole face of the U.S.S.R., these "have-beens" have wormed their way into our plants and factories, into our government offices and trading organisations, into our railway and water transport enterprises, and, principally, into the collective farms and state farms. They have crept into these places and taken cover there, donning the mask of "workers" and "peasants," and some of them have even managed to worm their way into the Party.

What did they carry with them into these places? Of course, they carried with them a feeling of hatred towards the Soviet regime, a feeling of burning enmity towards the new forms of economy, life and culture.

These gentlemen are no longer able to launch a frontal attack against the Soviet regime. They and their classes made such attacks several times, but they were routed and dispersed. Hence, the only thing left them is to do mischief and harm to the workers, to the collective farmers, to the Soviet regime and to the Party. And they are doing as much mischief as they can, acting on the sly. They set fire to warehouses and wreck machinery. They organise sabotage. They organise wrecking activities in the collective farms and state farms, and some of them, including certain professors, go to such lengths in their passion for wrecking as to inject plague and anthrax germs into the cattle on the collective farms and state farms, help to spread meningitis among horses, etc.

But that is not the main thing. The main thing in the "work" of these "have-beens" is that they organise mass theft and plundering of state property, co-operative property and collective-farm property. Theft and plundering in the factories and plants, theft and plundering of railway freight, theft and plundering in warehouses and trading enterprises—particularly theft and plundering in the state farms and collective farms—such is the main form of the "work" of these "have-beens." Their class instinct, as it were, tells them that the basis of Soviet economy is public property, and that it is precisely this basis that must be shaken in order to injure the Soviet regime—and they try indeed to shake the foundations of public ownership, by organising mass theft and plundering.

It's too long to go into and adequately address here, it has the answer to your question "how can you say they sabotaged it at every point?"

 

[Stevicus]

Many parts of empires were not particularly profitable or created losses.

You have cost of empire to deduct form the profits, and the cost of empire was often borne by the state while profits were often captured by companies and individuals.

But the world has always been full of empires, and European Empires became so successful because of industrialisaton rather than simply being empires that relied on resource extraction.

So while Empires did increase wealth, and there were benefits for industrialisation from Empire this was not the primary cause of European dominance. Even parts of Europe without significant colonial possessions industrialised more effectively than non-European Empires

The industrialism required resources that they had to depend on from other sources. Colonialism started out slowly in the 15th and 16th centuries, but it would be a couple more centuries before the early stages of the industrial revolution. So, they had been building up wealth for quite some time. Obviously, they understand the value of their colonies, since European powers were squabbling and fighting each other over control of them.

 

[Stevicus]

Yep. That is where you are right and @Revoltingest is wrong. Fascism = capitalism + authoritarianism.

When a system is based on authoritarianism, it is "the system" when it is oppressive.

I would say it depends largely on what is being presented on paper. In a monarchist system, at least at a de jure level, the monarch is the supreme leader. On paper, that is authoritarianism. In the case of the USSR, it was a federal democratic-republic, at least on paper, just like the USA is a federal democratic-republic (on paper). Neither system was based on authoritarianism, at least on paper.

Of course, under any system, **** happens. People might have gotten shot in the Soviet Union, just as people die in the USA from having police officers hold their knee on their necks for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Such things weren't supposed to happen in either system, at least not on paper.

Not only of him. It is an reoccurring fatal error of many anarchists. Though it isn't a two-front-war from the beginning. It starts as an alliance of communists and anarchists against the fascists and at a crucial points the communists backstab their anarchists "friends", sometimes allying themselves with capitalists and fascists to do so.

I know that Trotsky didn't think too highly of anarchists during the Russian Civil War. I'm trying to recall what happened between the communists and anarchists, but my memory is shot right now.

 

[Augustus]

The main reason for Appeasement was not because Britain or France trusted Hitler, but because Hitler had pulled ahead of them in the arms race (

And the main reason they were able to rearm so successfully was that the Soviets had been helping them as it was financially and strategically useful to them.

That kind of undermines the "poor, helpless Soviets" narrative.

There's speculation that if the West had not folded up at Munich and declared war instead, the Soviets would have joined the Allied side. Hitler was the one who pressed Stalin to make a deal, as the British guarantee to Poland put him between a rock and a hard place.

He wasn't forced into invading Poland. He carved it up with Hitler because he wanted to take more territory, just like Hitler did.

Sure, a few capitalists were engaged in the processes of industrialization, but only a few

It's not that it was a few capitalists, it was that soviet industrialisation was made possible by these capitalists.

This is a massive counterbalance to any sabotage if we are making a balance sheet.

Stalin himself mentioned that counter-revolutionaries were attempting to destroy the Soviet state:

Hitler said a lot about these internal enemies too...

Dictators tend to rely on such fiendish enemies so they can oppress the people for their own good.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Looks to me like a rather juvenile collection of Aunt Sallies.

Who's it by? Russell Brand or some other facetious onanist?

Brand is no commie. He believes in liberty, as far as I know.

 

[Augustus]

The industrialism required resources that they had to depend on from other sources. Colonialism started out slowly in the 15th and 16th centuries, but it would be a couple more centuries before the early stages of the industrial revolution. So, they had been building up wealth for quite some time. Obviously, they understand the value of their colonies, since European powers were squabbling and fighting each other over control of them.

Spain had a lucrative Empire, in the mid-18th c Britain's empire was mostly a few strategic ports and some middling colonies in the Americas.

If it was primarily about wealth from Empire, why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen in Spain or The Ottoman Empire or The Ashanti Empire?

 

[Stevicus]

And the main reason they were able to rearm so successfully was that the Soviets had been helping them as it was financially and strategically useful to them.

That kind of undermines the "poor, helpless Soviets" narrative.

I never said they were poor or helpless. But yes, why wouldn't it be to their advantage to play their enemies against each other?

Geopolitics back then was a rough game, and national governments played for keeps. And while they were neither poor nor helpless, the Soviets clearly faced hardships and intractable, formidable foes all around them.

A lot of national governments and people around the world hated the Soviets. Are you denying this?

He wasn't forced into invading Poland. He carved it up with Hitler because he wanted to take more territory, just like Hitler did.

Hitler had to offer Stalin a part of Poland and make other concessions in order to get Stalin to agree to it. True, he wasn't forced into invading Poland, but since it seemed inevitable, creating a buffer zone between Germany and the USSR would have made strategic sense. Having the Germans 200 miles closer to Moscow was not desirable (which would have been the case if Hitler invaded without Soviet participation). Also, the USSR was not ready for war with Germany at that stage. They had just had a skirmish with the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol.

So, I think your contention that "he wanted to take more territory" is an oversimplification of the historical circumstances which were existent at the time.

It's not that it was a few capitalists, it was that soviet industrialisation was made possible by these capitalists.

This is a massive counterbalance to any sabotage if we are making a balance sheet.

I would disagree with your contention that industrialization "was made possible by these capitalists." They may have helped, but as you've noted above, the Soviets were not helpless. They were in the process of industrializing already. I don't believe the capitalists who helped them were very well received back home. Albert Kahn's nephew was later blacklisted during the McCarthy era. That was an ugly time in US history. Not sure if your country went through anything similar.

Hitler said a lot about these internal enemies too...

Dictators tend to rely on such fiendish enemies so they can oppress the people for their own good.

Yes, although I would figure that Stalin probably did have many enemies and people who hated him.

I can't answer for everything that happened, and in fact, I wasn't even there, so I only have access to the same information as you or anyone else.

All I can say for certain is that, in my historical study of not just Russia but any other country where socialists or communists have tried to organize or to help workers, poor people, or others who are oppressed, they have faced utterly fanatical opposition who stop at nothing to undermine, sabotage, and/or annihilate them.

One doesn't need a dictatorship to create "fiendish enemies." Even in Western liberal democracies, it has happened and will likely continue to happen. The Red Scare just after WW1, the Palmer Raids, FBI surveillance of communists or suspected communists, McCarthyism, the Cold War, US support of numerous dictatorships around the world, all in the name of anti-communism (which our leaders deceptively called the "free world").

The bottom line, at least looking at history, if there has been an epic struggle between the capitalist upper class and the proletarian lower classes, then I would say without hesitation: The capitalists started the fight.

 

[Stevicus]

Spain had a lucrative Empire, in the mid-18th c Britain's empire was mostly a few strategic ports and some middling colonies in the Americas.

If it was primarily about wealth from Empire, why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen in Spain or The Ottoman Empire or The Ashanti Empire?

Well, it did eventually happen in those places (although maybe not the Ashanti Empire). It just took longer. Probably a topic for another thread. Spain's focus was on the whole "Gold, Glory, and God" thing. The British seemed more pragmatic by comparison. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. The Spanish Empire started to falter and eventually falling under Napoleon's thumb for a while kind of left Spain reeling for a while. Bad luck for them, but their colonies in the Americas gained their independence.

American industrialism really didn't take off until after the Civil War, so we were behind the British as well, at least at that time. Of course, all of the countries within the general Western sphere did commerce with each other, so the industrial revolution was certain to spread in the literate, relatively advanced nation-states in Europe. So, even countries that didn't have colonies developed the skills and means to build industries, and that's where the crunch for resources became more acute. Hence the need to go out and search for colonies with resources.

There was no genuine military or strategic reason for going around and grabbing all these colonies. That is to say, Belgium's control of the Congo certainly did not aid them in the defense of their country when the Germans invaded. But there was most definitely an economic reason for doing so.

 

[exchemist]

Spain had a lucrative Empire, in the mid-18th c Britain's empire was mostly a few strategic ports and some middling colonies in the Americas.

If it was primarily about wealth from Empire, why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen in Spain or The Ottoman Empire or The Ashanti Empire?

I'm not a historian but it seems to me the Industrial Revolution started in Britain because of coal (for steel and steam), a culture of Protestant pragmatism that encouraged invention, settled political structures, England having got its revolution out of the way a couple of centuries earlier, and the enclosure acts forcing people off the land and into towns.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not a historian but it seems to me the Industrial Revolution started in Britain because of coal (for steel and steam), a culture of Protestant pragmatism that encouraged invention, settled political structures, England having got its revolution out of the way a couple of centuries earlier, and the enclosure acts forcing people off the land and into towns.

It wasn't just sending small farmers into towns.
Larger farms were more efficient & amenable to mechanization.
Improved efficiency enabled towns to support more people,
& provide the labor for manufacturing tools & other goods.
Ameristanian industrialization started not with coal, but with
water powered machinery in New England. I recall reading
of the stereotype that every small stream was lined with
shops. Steam came later, & caused manufacturing to move
from distributed rural streams to centralized cities. This
led to women entering the workforce...ugh...women working?
The horror!

 

[Kooky]

No, as anarchy is irreconcilable in too many areas and concerns.

That statement says nothing at all.

Ireconcilable with what or whom, in which areas, regarding which concerns?

 

[Kooky]

Many parts of empires were not particularly profitable or created losses.

For the state, yes. Plenty of private individuals did indeed profit from it.

Spain had a lucrative Empire, in the mid-18th c Britain's empire was mostly a few strategic ports and some middling colonies in the Americas.

If it was primarily about wealth from Empire, why didn't the Industrial Revolution happen in Spain or The Ottoman Empire or The Ashanti Empire?

Neither Spain nor the Ottomans had a mature shipping and trade economy that could have benefitted from an enormous overseas empire, nor did they have a significant banking sector or stock market that could have provided the necessary capital, nor were their mining or manufacturing sectors suffering from the specific, very peculiuarly British (or, rather, Scottish) problems that the early steam engines would have been able to solve.


We can talk until our mouths fall off about why this or that country didn't have an Industrial Revolution.

Fact is, the Industrial Revolution happened in exactly two places - Britain and Belgium - whose economies were arguably linked to such an extent that we may as well call it a singular, ongoing event in that case.

For this reason, I think it is safe to argue that the preconditions for an Industrial Revolution are so specific and rare that we may as well assume it to be a uniquely British (and specifically, English and Scottish) event with no parallels anywhere else in the world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That statement says nothing at all.

Ireconcilable with what or whom, in which areas, regarding which concerns?

It says enough to say it's not an endorsement of anarchy.

 

[Kooky]

It says enough to say it's not an endorsement of anarchy.

You're right; it says to me "I don't like anarchism, but can't come up with a reason that would make any sense at all."

 

[Kooky]

It wasn't just sending small farmers into towns.
Larger farms were more efficient & amenable to mechanization.
Improved efficiency enabled towns to support more people,
& provide the labor for manufacturing tools & other goods.
Ameristanian industrialization started not with coal, but with
water powered machinery in New England. I recall reading
of the stereotype that every small stream was lined with
shops. Steam came later, & caused manufacturing to move
from distributed rural streams to centralized cities. This
led to women entering the workforce...ugh...women working?
The horror!

US industrialization couldn't have happened independently from Britain. They relied on British technology and British capital to get going.

As I said before, the only places where Industrial Revolutions happened were the UK and Belgium.
All other countries were simply adapting what was already there.

 

[Kooky]

Brand is no commie. He believes in liberty, as far as I know.

Most socialists do.

It's the fascists who typically have an issue with the liberty of those who don't look or think like them.