I don’t understand this point. Or actually, what it’s trying to say at all. This doesn’t refute the fact stated in the post. “It happened in a bad way.” Yeah, I agree, and I would go further to say that it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history, but I have some bad news about how most of the world developed its wealth. And I got further news for the response that I can already smell cooking none of it is justified.
But the worst news of all: “yes let’s just ignore Stalinism” as a phrase is such a brainded take. I’m still reeling trying to figure out how it factors into this conversation at all.
So this is amazing because you called out my preemptive dismissal, then walked face-first into saying exactly what I preempted.
The only thing this post points out is that people point to Russia as some sort of example of how communism (well, Russia’s form of “communism” which is a whole other thing) doesn’t work economically. This clearly doesn’t make sense because Russia went from agrarian farmers to an industrialized nation considered one of the 2 “great powers” in the world. That doesn’t seem like a failed economic system to me. It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work. It just talks about the economics.
Now what this post never mentions is the social system in which they became an economic powerhouse. Not because we’re dismissing or ignoring human rights abuses, but because it literally is not relevant to the argument being made, which is specifically a counter argument to people saying communism doesn’t work economically.
We can see this in this post because you have to waffle around saying “well, no one does it without human rights abuses, if this was a pro-american post I would be arguing the opposite, I actually hate both sides etc.” the reason you have to take such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance is because there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.
It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work.
The analogy is apt because it’s drawing attention to the inherent disingenuous nature of the post, i.e. making a point of Russia’s rapid growth industrially without taking into account the massive mortality and suffering that went hand in hand with that. They are, at least arguably, of equal moral dubiousness.
It just talks about the economics.
Hmm… and what powered and lived under said economy, I wonder… Surely it couldn’t be the people and the society they compose, which are thereby necessary to mention in this context to remain logically coherent… No, the economy must live in some nonsensical and abstracted theoretical realm, so we can just go with that, certainly.
human rights abuses…literally not relevant to the argument being made.
This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think the society and people an economy is composed of and the suffering they are dealt is “irrelevant” to said economy? I’m sorry, but what the flying fuck kind of logic even is this?
such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance
Assuming you’re not a campist, I’m sure you can understand the fact that reality (and therefore any opinion also) isn’t so black and white as needing to pick one group or the other without allowing for any nuance.
there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.
Considering how OP’s post consists of a juxtaposition between Russia’s rapid industrialization and the way they are typically portrayed in the US without any nuance, I think most would agree that it’s important to consider the human cost involved in said industrialization, specifically at the hand, at least in part, of Stalinism. Economies can’t really be discussed historically in an abstract bubble separated from any and all sociological factors, that’s not how it works, like, at all.
I think I see the two different arguments we’re speaking past each other about, so I’ll make an analogy. Imagine someone made an argument saying:
"Sorbet is made out of sugar and fruit juice.
The dairy education system: Ice cream is superior because Sorbet isn’t sweet"
And someone comments: “Yes, let’s just ignore the human rights abuses that go into farming the fruit that made the sorbet”
It’s true that sorbet is also made by an exploitative system, similar to how the dairy industry sucks for similar human and animal rights abuses. But the original post (like this one) is not saying sorbet is superior because it is also sweet, nor is it justifying the exploitative fruit farming industry by saying sorbet is able to be sweet like ice cream is sweet. It never denied that ice cream isn’t sweet, in fact, if anything all it did was place sorbet on the same level. It’s simply pointing out how clearly ill-conceived it is to pretend like sorbet hasn’t also demonstrated it’s viability as an economic system.
This analogy is silly, it came off the top of my head, I hope it shows why the argument is a non-sequiter. I think plenty of people are making the leap in logic of imagining the continuing argument as if the OP is saying “communism rules, capitalism drools”, but it just doesn’t.
Also, I’d like to say, pretending that Russia for those 50 years was demonstrating glorious perfect communism is stupid, but that only further helps the argument because it’s pointed to by the US as an example of communism and this post argues that on it’s face that’s a bad argument.
I don’t understand this point. Or actually, what it’s trying to say at all. This doesn’t refute the fact stated in the post. “It happened in a bad way.” Yeah, I agree, and I would go further to say that it’s easily one of the worst human rights atrocities in history, but I have some bad news about how most of the world developed its wealth. And I got further news for the response that I can already smell cooking none of it is justified.
But the worst news of all: “yes let’s just ignore Stalinism” as a phrase is such a brainded take. I’m still reeling trying to figure out how it factors into this conversation at all.
Removed by mod
So this is amazing because you called out my preemptive dismissal, then walked face-first into saying exactly what I preempted.
The only thing this post points out is that people point to Russia as some sort of example of how communism (well, Russia’s form of “communism” which is a whole other thing) doesn’t work economically. This clearly doesn’t make sense because Russia went from agrarian farmers to an industrialized nation considered one of the 2 “great powers” in the world. That doesn’t seem like a failed economic system to me. It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work. It just talks about the economics.
Now what this post never mentions is the social system in which they became an economic powerhouse. Not because we’re dismissing or ignoring human rights abuses, but because it literally is not relevant to the argument being made, which is specifically a counter argument to people saying communism doesn’t work economically.
We can see this in this post because you have to waffle around saying “well, no one does it without human rights abuses, if this was a pro-american post I would be arguing the opposite, I actually hate both sides etc.” the reason you have to take such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance is because there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.
The analogy is apt because it’s drawing attention to the inherent disingenuous nature of the post, i.e. making a point of Russia’s rapid growth industrially without taking into account the massive mortality and suffering that went hand in hand with that. They are, at least arguably, of equal moral dubiousness.
Hmm… and what powered and lived under said economy, I wonder… Surely it couldn’t be the people and the society they compose, which are thereby necessary to mention in this context to remain logically coherent… No, the economy must live in some nonsensical and abstracted theoretical realm, so we can just go with that, certainly.
This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think the society and people an economy is composed of and the suffering they are dealt is “irrelevant” to said economy? I’m sorry, but what the flying fuck kind of logic even is this?
Assuming you’re not a campist, I’m sure you can understand the fact that reality (and therefore any opinion also) isn’t so black and white as needing to pick one group or the other without allowing for any nuance.
Considering how OP’s post consists of a juxtaposition between Russia’s rapid industrialization and the way they are typically portrayed in the US without any nuance, I think most would agree that it’s important to consider the human cost involved in said industrialization, specifically at the hand, at least in part, of Stalinism. Economies can’t really be discussed historically in an abstract bubble separated from any and all sociological factors, that’s not how it works, like, at all.
I think I see the two different arguments we’re speaking past each other about, so I’ll make an analogy. Imagine someone made an argument saying:
"Sorbet is made out of sugar and fruit juice.
The dairy education system: Ice cream is superior because Sorbet isn’t sweet"
And someone comments: “Yes, let’s just ignore the human rights abuses that go into farming the fruit that made the sorbet”
It’s true that sorbet is also made by an exploitative system, similar to how the dairy industry sucks for similar human and animal rights abuses. But the original post (like this one) is not saying sorbet is superior because it is also sweet, nor is it justifying the exploitative fruit farming industry by saying sorbet is able to be sweet like ice cream is sweet. It never denied that ice cream isn’t sweet, in fact, if anything all it did was place sorbet on the same level. It’s simply pointing out how clearly ill-conceived it is to pretend like sorbet hasn’t also demonstrated it’s viability as an economic system.
This analogy is silly, it came off the top of my head, I hope it shows why the argument is a non-sequiter. I think plenty of people are making the leap in logic of imagining the continuing argument as if the OP is saying “communism rules, capitalism drools”, but it just doesn’t.
Also, I’d like to say, pretending that Russia for those 50 years was demonstrating glorious perfect communism is stupid, but that only further helps the argument because it’s pointed to by the US as an example of communism and this post argues that on it’s face that’s a bad argument.
You’d have to be a denialist about a huge number of human rights abuses to think this
That’s maybe fair, I said that to throw them a bone and show that I’m not concerned with trying to deny anything about Stalinism to make my point.