0
[-] AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Unless you're a Patsoc as in Socialism with Patrick Star characteristics. Then you're a valued member of this forum.

0
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/264644

The Ministry of Justice of the Donetsk Peoples Republic just announced that the death penalty will be on the table as a punishment for the nazis and mercenaries that will soon be put on trial for their crimes against the people of Donbass. The trial will begin soon. The nazis are being charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and mercenarism (all punishable up to the death penalty). There are 2 british citizens among them. Nazis be shitting their pants, libs be coping 🤣🤣🤣👌👌👌👌

1
Iconic duo (lemmygrad.ml)
[-] AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Redditor is a state of mind. You don't necessarily have to use the site to be one.

[-] AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"Everyone who disagrees me is a piece of shit and is siding with tyrants, no I'm not going to actually read their arguments beyond the title."

0
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml

Short answer: We're not for or against censorship as a concept in a vacuum. We're against the goals of US's censorship being to expand and strengthen the US's imperialism. On the other hand, we do support it when it's used to maintain the security and integrity of a country, especially a socialist country.

Censorship, Media Control, Press Control, these are tools. As concepts, they are neither good nor evil, they just are. No country with a government doesn't use them. None. And you DO NOT WANT to be in a country that doesn't use these AT ALL, because its media would be an abject hellscape. Not JUST "trolling" and "edgelords" hellscape mind you, but things like calling for the murder of random people or entire races, shock sites, snuff films, r*pe films, revenge porn, CP, etc. These are things that are, by definition, CENSORED in nearly every country, and the vast majority of people support that.

So we've established that censorship, as an entire concept, is not necessarily a bad thing. But what about censoring political discourse?

Well, political misinformation can be extremely harmful. We've seen this with Trump supporters, white supremicists using pseudoscience to justify their beliefs, antivaxxers/antimaskers, etc. These things can sway the development of a country and/or get people killed. You also have foreign powers trying to get misinformation into your borders to manufacture contempt to your government.

When China censors misinformation and foreign propaganda, socialists support them, because these are all things that can cause the collapse of a country through no fault of its government. In fact, we support capitalist countries censoring patent political misinformation, especially countries facing propaganda attack from the US like Pakistan, Iran, etc, because it's the US's favourite way of staging a regime change.

What we DON'T support is when censorship, a tool, is wielded by capitalists or imperialists. When the US uses censorship to artificially silence pushback against its manufactured narratives, like their false rationale for the Iraq War, we don't support that. When the US artificially raises or lowers attention on some current event, like how they over-represent the conflict in Ukraine but severely under-represent similar conflicts in places like Palestine, we don't support it.

"Communists argue in bad faith!"

2
1
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml

Mirrored from Reddit, not my work. Source: https://teddit.net/r/InformedTankie/comments/hg2qu4/why_even_a_free_market_is_doomed_to_fail/

Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20220325041808/https://old.reddit.com/r/InformedTankie/comments/hg2qu4/why_even_a_free_market_is_doomed_to_fail/


"its not capitalism! its Corporatism." "its not the market, its regulation." we hear these 2 sayings all the time, but lets see what would happen using history and raw data to see what will happen if conservatives and libertarians got there dream of laissez-faire. i will give my case on why the "free market" would fail.

Business will do anything, i mean anything to get out of head to head competition. with a super competitive market, whatever you sell so does your competition, that means lower and lower profits. Why do you think branding exists?

Natural Monopoly:

Merging and simple competition:

Firstly i hope many people know why monopoly is bad, at least capitalist monopolies. Many people like to claim there would not be any monopoly in a free market but this is demonstrably false:

After the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 politicians were excited to see many new competitors and thus improving the airline industry. the opposite happened, although competition did flourish and many new competitors hit the market it was a matter of time till the companies started merging, thus eliminating competition and the rest ended up going bankrupt. And there was even more Airline companies before deregulation. Many people don't realize, companies don't want competition and will do anything to assure competition is eliminated, whether this be buying competitors, merging, out performing them based on scale (smaller companies give better quality the richer company can easily temporarily do better) and even other forms of sabotage. this is very general and simple, but competition has winners.

Utility monopoly:

this one is simple for several companies to run sewer systems, power lines, etc is simply inefficient resulting in a very common and natural monopoly.

Resource monopoly:

A resource monopoly occurs when a company has control of a scarce or location specific resource.

Yes, not as widespread but still very possible for example: ALCOA—the Aluminum Company of America controlled almost all the supply of Bauxite. No other companies could produce enough Aluminum to compete.

Another example is DeBeers who had control over the production of diamond in most of the 20th century.

taken from socialisci:

Intimidation and barriers to entry:

Businesses have developed a number of schemes for creating barriers to entry by deterring potential competitors from entering the market. One method is known as predatory pricing, in which a firm uses the threat of sharp price cuts to discourage competition. Predatory pricing is a violation of U.S. antitrust law, but it is difficult to prove. Now imagine no law against it.

Consider a large airline that provides most of the flights between two particular cities. A new, small start-up airline decides to offer service between these two cities. The large airline immediately slashes prices on this route to the bone, so that the new entrant cannot make any money. After the new entrant has gone out of business, the incumbent firm can raise prices again.

After this pattern is repeated once or twice, potential new entrants may decide that it is not wise to try to compete. Small airlines often accuse larger airlines of predatory pricing: in the early 2000s, for example, ValuJet accused Delta of predatory pricing, Frontier accused United, and Reno Air accused Northwest. In 2015, the Justice Department ruled against American Express and Mastercard for imposing restrictions on retailers who encouraged customers to use lower swipe fees on credit transactions.

In some cases, large advertising budgets can also act as a way of discouraging the competition. If the only way to launch a successful new national cola drink is to spend more than the promotional budgets of Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola, not too many companies will try. A firmly established brand name can be difficult to dislodge.

Violent cycles:

Instability would be a plague of Free market advocates whilst the USSR had no recessions besides maybe a downturn during the war, the USA had 50 recessions, let me say that again, 50 recessions. This is some proper stability my friends. i mean ffs free market policies caused the 2008 financial crisis.

the whole idea of competition is instability, tons of new competitors and tons of businesses going out of business. a super packed industry is ideal for quality and lowering of prices (as i've shown there's many problems with this) but this creates violent cycles of job instability, job loss, etc.

Resource allocation:

Yes the usual market forces will be there but so will the crushing poverty worldwide. but without any real government aid to other nations we should expect things to be much worse. It is not profitable to sell food to 3rd world nations, but they are good cheap labour so under a worldwide libertarian type system expect some crazy inequality and unequal exchange.

principles needed to have a "Free market":

(credit to Reddish_vp)

- Rational agents;

- Monoatomic enterprises;

- Homogenuos products;

- No barriers to entry or exit the market;

All of those items are purely theoretical and each have a whole world of problems of their own.

Profit and Waste

its quite simple, a company runs on profits, capitalism runs on profits and if you do not keep coming back to buy there product there not making any money thus fail. this practice which is called planned obsolescence is very common, wasteful and exploitative.

The made to break motive started mainly in the 1930s with the pheobus cartel at a time when the average light bulb could last up to 25,000 hours! but then all companies were commanded to only allow a max of 1,000 hours of life to increase demand. this is a prime example of the wastefulness caused by capitalism. if this is not fixed this wasteful and disgusting trait of capitalism will worsen the lives of many as life grows more unsustainable. these are not just numbers, these are finite resources that with proper allocation and correct production could better the lives of everyone whilst keeping world sustainability.

Excerpt from TBS: "advertisements each and every day whose sole purpose is to convince us to keep on shopping under the promise that doing so will make our lives better. Through advertising, companies have managed to make us confuse our needs with our wants, thus making us desire to acquire things that we don’t truly need, so that we can fill in their pockets by emptying our own." this quote will remain crucial to the following points and crucial to this whole post in general.

Not too long ago apple was fined for deliberately slowing older phones so people buy the new ones.

W: another example, inkjet printer manufacturers employ smart chips in their ink cartridges to prevent them from being used after a certain threshold (number of pages, time, etc.), even though the cartridge may still contain usable ink or could be refilled (with ink toners, up to 50 percent of the toner cartridge is often still full). This constitutes "programmed obsolescence", in that there is no random component contributing to the decline in function.

other examples/ways items are made to break:

Nylons: not nearly as quality as they use to be.

Consumer Electronics: the case of apple deliberately slowing older phones and as shown below the tricks like placing the most sensitive part next to the hottest part on the circuit.

Cars: Vehicles that mere made before world war 2 were still being driven in the 60s. but this is not profitable, so companies created plans.

  1. “routinely discontinue parts that could otherwise be made available for repairs.”
  2. ” confirm to a strict yearly cycle of model releases, often introducing purely cosmetic changes from one year to the next.”
  3. “retire popular models and bring out something new every few years, making it harder to fix older vehicles.” (instead of “sticking with hits and standardizing them over time, which would better support a repair aftermarket”)

Cars today, for many, are seen as a fashion accessory and statement. It has become common for people to buy the new model of a car, even if the one they own is in great shape, and still has years to live.

Reached character limit, continued in this comment.

I mean, if they halted operations, presumably permanently as they seem to imply, it shouldn't matter right? Since they intend to ditch all their assets and exit the market anyway, right?

Unless this whole thing was a marketing ploy for Western audiences and they plan to start right back up once people stop paying attention. Hmm...

But... But... Daddy Sam told me that America doesn't censor! That's a commie thing!

1
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml
5
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml

Not my work, credit to this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/k4vbl0/quick_guide_to_debunking_death_toll_claims/

Source: When someone makes a Death Toll Claim, always ask for the source. In most cases the conversation would have ended here as most people who make DTCs are idiots, but in case they persist, you can make a pretty educated guess on their source depending on their DTC.

If they claim any of the following:

  • Mao killed 65 million
  • Stalin killed 15 million
  • Holodomor killed 7 million
  • Gulag killed 3 million
  • Communism killed over 100 million

Then it is safe to assume that they got their numbers from “Black Book of Communism,” a book that is despised in the academic field. A whole book can be written about why “BBoC” is academic trash but here are some quick trivia to remember:

  • Two of the book contributors renounced their association with the book.
  • Harvard University retracted its publication of the book.
  • The book defines “any unnatural death” concurrent to Communism as a “victim to it.”

If the DTC list includes famine death, but the list itself does not list Winston Churchill’s Death Toll in the millions (3 million based on credible sources), it is safe to assume that this list is bogus and question the OP as to why Winston Churchill, who directly caused the Bengal Famine that killed 3 million people, is not on the list.

How to determine whether a list included famine deaths:

  • If the USSR death toll is significantly above 1.8 million
    • 800,000 executions throughout the entire USSR
    • About one million gulag deaths
  • If the Maoist China death toll is significantly above 400,000
    • About 400,000 deaths in the Cultural Revolution

I decided to include the gulag deaths for USSR as they are more than simply famine, but still significantly overestimated in most scenarios.

In short, if you see that the DTC is supported either by BBoC or Famine Deaths (in most cases, both), then you have more than sufficient knowledge at this point to debunk them.

Edit: Sources used:

Winston Churchill Bengal Famine Death Toll

Maoist China Death Toll

Holodomor Death Toll

USSR Penal System Death Toll


A commenter posted this, which is very insightful:

One thing to note about Gulag deaths is that many of them prior to the late 1940s were as a result of infection due to antibiotics not being available / invented in the USSR yet. After they were invented and available deaths in the Gulag system dropped significantly. and were even commensurate or lower than prison systems in the United States.

Edit: Sources for this:

American Historical Review Paper documenting death rates This shows a sharp dropoff in deaths around the end of WWII right around when antibiotics became widespread and available in the USSR.

Discovery of Antibiotics in the USSR in 1942 on page 128

This memo by some folks in Sweden explicitly makes this connection (not peer reviewed)

Finally there are some Western Academics that will make the claim that antibiotics were not widely available in the USSR until like the 1980s. This is false. This article notes that by the end of WWII there was enough widespread use of antibiotics that the USSR faced problems with antibiotic resistance at the end of WWII. This only occurs after widespread usage, it would imply that antibiotics were widely available at the end of WWII. Right around the dropoff in deaths.

http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/3905.htm

[...]

As far as I understand it yes between ~300k and 1.5 million German POWs died while in Soviet custody. While some prisoners of war went through the GULAG system most were kept in the GUPVI camps. They also were under NKVD jurisdiction. They had similar conditions to many of the colonies in the gulag system. IIRC there was more of a focus on ideological reformation (since they were Nazis). Due to the similar conditions (lack of effective sanitation, lack of antibiotics, famine). Many also died as a result of infection or starvation as a result.

So some might include those death totals in "Gulag" totals but that would not really be a correct categorization of them.


Another comment:

We must not also forget that the -

1.8 Million people who were killed in the Gulags simply Reactionaries, Counter Revolutionaries and Fascists. Those numbers are also false and exxagerated and in fact the Mortality rates at the Gulag were no different than a Standard Western Prison.

400k people who were killed in the cultural revolution were Landlords who did not obey orders from the PLA to distribute their land and grain and simply reactionaries and counter revolutionaries.

Refer https://qr.ae/pNieIB

Edit:

I thought of mentioning this video. The deaths caused by Communism are narrated by a Centric Manner, explaining that the deaths caused by Gulags or Famines or Massacres won't be counted as deaths by a Socio-Economic system but as Atrocities comitted by someone regardless of if they happened or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wflMmNTXqKk


Last one:

Funnily enough:

Solzhenitsyn opined on 2 April 2008 in Izvestiathat the 1930s famine in the Ukraine was no different from the Russian famine of 1921 as both were caused by the ruthless robbery of peasants by Bolshevik grain procurements.[110] He claimed that the "provocatory shriek about a 'genocide' was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later, who are also viciously opposed to 'Moskals.'" The writer cautioned that the genocidal claim has its chances to be accepted by the West due to the general Western ignorance of Russian and Ukrainian history.[110]

Solzhenitsyn being the author of "The Gulag Archipelago", also a self-contradicting, ethno-state promoting nationalist. Not that I am trying to bring legitimacy to anything they said, but you can always bring this up and see how they try to reconcile the contradiction between this and their other "evidence".

I didn't even know about North Korea's other political parties until I saw a toot on Mastodon by @nutomic@lemmy.ml. In fact I thought it was an absolute one-man dictatorship. Guess I got roped hook, line, and sinker by propaganda.

0
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml

Apparently he was a socialist, but he was against "authoritarian socialism" like Stalinism. What are your opinions on him and/or his writings?

[-] AgreeableLandscape@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

You forgot Nazis. Fucking Nazis.

AgreeableLandscape

joined 3 years ago