I did educate myself, and in so doing I learned that false statements with absolute terms are easily disproven. I noticed a distinct lack of disproof in your reply. All heat, no light.
ad hominem - A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent’s idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
ad hominem - A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent’s idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
Did you even read that definition? You weren’t applying it correctly. Similarly the things you said, were wrong, not because of who you are, but because the things you said were wrong. That’s why i encourage you to read instead of talk
It’s not an adhominem also you can’t prove a negative the burden of proof is on you. You’re doing a Russell’s teapot. You have made a statement that is false with no evidence to back up your claim.
You can’t prove a negative, but they are easy to disprove if they are false. My assertion is logically negative, even if I didn’t phrase it that way. One positive counter example would prove it false. Got one? The evidence of my claim is that no counter examples exist. How do I cite the lack of something?
Cuba? Yugoslavia? Mao-era China? Paris Commune? Spain in 1936? The early USSR?
In Cuba, large parts of the social surplus have long been distributed through universal systems rather than privately captured. In Yugoslavia, workers’ self-management gave enterprise councils real authority over production and surplus allocation. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege especially during the cultural revolution you likely demonize (even if that had its own major issues). In Paris (1871), officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In Soviet Union, the early revolutionary period featured soviets, factory committees, and formal attempts to cap official incomes and socialize surplus.
If you dismiss all of these, it starts to look less like analysis and more like bad faith. And your argument completely sidesteps the decisive factors, relentless external pressure from capitalist hegemony, war, blockade, sanctions, sabotage, plus the material limits of poor, devastated societies. Treating outcomes as if they emerged in a vacuum reeks of liberal idealism. That’s about as useful for understanding political economy as quoting scripture. What actually recurs historically is not some mystical law that “communism creates elites,” but bureaucratic pressures under siege and underdevelopment, concrete problems of socialist transition, not proof that surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class.
I would recommend you study some theory and learn to apply dialectical and historical materialism rather than wasting your time spreading malformed “analysis”.
I never said communist systems don’t result in some level of redistribution. Poverty in Cuba is widespread, but somehow doesn’t seem to reach the political class. I don’t think those politicians are living large on the fruits of their own labor. The US gets a lot of the blame for the poverty, but not the distribution within Cuba.
Yugoslavia isn’t communist. I’m roughly a social libertarian and worker managed enterprise is something I strongly support. I support a lot of things with a communist flavor, and I’m probably closer to the communist side than capitalist.
China is your strongest example, though I object to the pigeon hole you put me in. However, I think it’s fair to draw a distinction between distribution achieved though revolution and distribution maintained by the resulting communist system. The revolution was extremely effective, but inequality started resurfacing as soon as it ended. It’s also notable that poverty in China didn’t really fall until the introduction of capitalist “reforms”. ( I would not argue that “reforms” shouldn’t be “capitulations”. )
I don’t see the relevance of what was “attempted” in the Soviet Union. The discussion is about what was achieved.
What actually recurs historically is not some mystical law that “communism creates elites,” … not proof that surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that communism creates elites, but I think it’s powerless to prevent them. I definitely don’t believe that “surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class”. I just don’t think communism is a functional solution. I do believe fair distribution is achievable, but not under communism or capitalism. I don’t believe the spectrum between the two encompasses the entirety of what is possible. In fact, the biggest problem with both systems is that neither is structurally sound.
I would recommend you study some theory
Oh, give it a rest. Imagine me assuming the only reason you aren’t a raging capitalist is that you haven’t read enough Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. That’s what this sounds like, and it’s exhausting.
You’re moving the goalposts. You started with “communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” Now it’s “communism can’t prevent inequality” and “maybe there’s something outside capitalism and communism.” Pick a lane. Those are completely different claims. The original one is already falsified. In Cuba, the political class does not own production and surplus is routed through the state into healthcare, education, housing, and food subsidies under permanent siege. That is not capitalist surplus extraction. In Yugoslavia, workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus, your personal approval of worker self-management doesn’t magically make it irrelevant. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege (especially during the Cultural Revolution). In the Paris Commune, officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In the early Soviet Union, surplus was socialized through soviets and factory committees with formal income caps on officials. These are concrete institutional facts. None of this fits your original caricature of “a small elite stealing surplus labor.”
On Cuba: inequality exists. That is not evidence of a new exploiting class. The Cuban leadership does not privately own factories or land. Complaining about internal distribution while casually brushing aside six decades of blockade, sanctions, sabotage, and economic warfare is lazy. You’re treating Cuba like it developed in a vacuum. I hope you can see how patently ridiculous that is.
On China: you admit Mao-era redistribution was real, then dismiss it because inequality resurfaced later. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated that outcomes depend on material conditions, not some mystical communist essence. Also, China’s post-reform poverty reduction rested on Mao-era foundations: land nationalization, universal literacy, basic healthcare, and industrial infrastructure. Markets were layered on top of socialism, they didn’t replace it.
On the USSR: saying “attempts don’t matter, only outcomes” is historically illiterate. Institutions don’t appear fully formed, they evolve under civil war, invasion, famine, and international isolation. Ignoring that context while declaring socialism “powerless” is like judging a burned house without mentioning the arsonist.
And notice how far you’ve already retreated. Now you say communism doesn’t create elites, it just “can’t stop them.” That’s not what you originally claimed. Marxists have been writing for over a century about bureaucratic degeneration under scarcity and imperialist pressure. You’re not discovering anything new, you’re just refusing to engage with the material conditions that produce it.
Finally, since you want to posture: socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference. It’s a scientific framework (historical and dialectical materialism) built on analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and concrete conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you feel comfortable lecturing people who do. Liberalism and capitalism, by contrast, rely on idealist abstractions about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.” That’s about as scientific as the Bible. If you actually want to contribute something meaningful, start by learning how material analysis works instead of recycling warmed-over liberal common sense and calling it insight.
The only exhausting thing here is your seemingly unlimited arrogance to lecture others on topics you don’t understand beyond surface level vibes and idealism.
I made a claim that would be trivial to disprove with a single example. The proof is that there are none. How exactly do I cite something that doesn’t exist?
What would you accept as proof?
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
That is completely false. You have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to talk about something, try educating yourself first
I did educate myself, and in so doing I learned that false statements with absolute terms are easily disproven. I noticed a distinct lack of disproof in your reply. All heat, no light.
Obviously you didn’t
Funny how all you can do is throw out ad hominems.
You don’t even know what your debate pervert words mean. Read a book dude
LOL, and another ad hominem. At least you guys get points for consistency.
That’s still not what ad hominem means. I urge you to read instead of pretending to know about things
“Your point is wrong because you are stupid” -ad hominem
“Your point is wrong and you are stupid”- not ad hominem
Did you even read that definition? You weren’t applying it correctly. Similarly the things you said, were wrong, not because of who you are, but because the things you said were wrong. That’s why i encourage you to read instead of talk
It’s not an adhominem also you can’t prove a negative the burden of proof is on you. You’re doing a Russell’s teapot. You have made a statement that is false with no evidence to back up your claim.
You can’t prove a negative, but they are easy to disprove if they are false. My assertion is logically negative, even if I didn’t phrase it that way. One positive counter example would prove it false. Got one? The evidence of my claim is that no counter examples exist. How do I cite the lack of something?
And yeah, it was a textbook ad hominem.
Cuba? Yugoslavia? Mao-era China? Paris Commune? Spain in 1936? The early USSR?
In Cuba, large parts of the social surplus have long been distributed through universal systems rather than privately captured. In Yugoslavia, workers’ self-management gave enterprise councils real authority over production and surplus allocation. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege especially during the cultural revolution you likely demonize (even if that had its own major issues). In Paris (1871), officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In Soviet Union, the early revolutionary period featured soviets, factory committees, and formal attempts to cap official incomes and socialize surplus.
If you dismiss all of these, it starts to look less like analysis and more like bad faith. And your argument completely sidesteps the decisive factors, relentless external pressure from capitalist hegemony, war, blockade, sanctions, sabotage, plus the material limits of poor, devastated societies. Treating outcomes as if they emerged in a vacuum reeks of liberal idealism. That’s about as useful for understanding political economy as quoting scripture. What actually recurs historically is not some mystical law that “communism creates elites,” but bureaucratic pressures under siege and underdevelopment, concrete problems of socialist transition, not proof that surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class.
I would recommend you study some theory and learn to apply dialectical and historical materialism rather than wasting your time spreading malformed “analysis”.
I never said communist systems don’t result in some level of redistribution. Poverty in Cuba is widespread, but somehow doesn’t seem to reach the political class. I don’t think those politicians are living large on the fruits of their own labor. The US gets a lot of the blame for the poverty, but not the distribution within Cuba.
Yugoslavia isn’t communist. I’m roughly a social libertarian and worker managed enterprise is something I strongly support. I support a lot of things with a communist flavor, and I’m probably closer to the communist side than capitalist.
China is your strongest example, though I object to the pigeon hole you put me in. However, I think it’s fair to draw a distinction between distribution achieved though revolution and distribution maintained by the resulting communist system. The revolution was extremely effective, but inequality started resurfacing as soon as it ended. It’s also notable that poverty in China didn’t really fall until the introduction of capitalist “reforms”. ( I would not argue that “reforms” shouldn’t be “capitulations”. )
I don’t see the relevance of what was “attempted” in the Soviet Union. The discussion is about what was achieved.
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say that communism creates elites, but I think it’s powerless to prevent them. I definitely don’t believe that “surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class”. I just don’t think communism is a functional solution. I do believe fair distribution is achievable, but not under communism or capitalism. I don’t believe the spectrum between the two encompasses the entirety of what is possible. In fact, the biggest problem with both systems is that neither is structurally sound.
Oh, give it a rest. Imagine me assuming the only reason you aren’t a raging capitalist is that you haven’t read enough Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. That’s what this sounds like, and it’s exhausting.
You’re moving the goalposts. You started with “communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” Now it’s “communism can’t prevent inequality” and “maybe there’s something outside capitalism and communism.” Pick a lane. Those are completely different claims. The original one is already falsified. In Cuba, the political class does not own production and surplus is routed through the state into healthcare, education, housing, and food subsidies under permanent siege. That is not capitalist surplus extraction. In Yugoslavia, workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus, your personal approval of worker self-management doesn’t magically make it irrelevant. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege (especially during the Cultural Revolution). In the Paris Commune, officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In the early Soviet Union, surplus was socialized through soviets and factory committees with formal income caps on officials. These are concrete institutional facts. None of this fits your original caricature of “a small elite stealing surplus labor.”
On Cuba: inequality exists. That is not evidence of a new exploiting class. The Cuban leadership does not privately own factories or land. Complaining about internal distribution while casually brushing aside six decades of blockade, sanctions, sabotage, and economic warfare is lazy. You’re treating Cuba like it developed in a vacuum. I hope you can see how patently ridiculous that is.
On China: you admit Mao-era redistribution was real, then dismiss it because inequality resurfaced later. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated that outcomes depend on material conditions, not some mystical communist essence. Also, China’s post-reform poverty reduction rested on Mao-era foundations: land nationalization, universal literacy, basic healthcare, and industrial infrastructure. Markets were layered on top of socialism, they didn’t replace it.
On the USSR: saying “attempts don’t matter, only outcomes” is historically illiterate. Institutions don’t appear fully formed, they evolve under civil war, invasion, famine, and international isolation. Ignoring that context while declaring socialism “powerless” is like judging a burned house without mentioning the arsonist.
And notice how far you’ve already retreated. Now you say communism doesn’t create elites, it just “can’t stop them.” That’s not what you originally claimed. Marxists have been writing for over a century about bureaucratic degeneration under scarcity and imperialist pressure. You’re not discovering anything new, you’re just refusing to engage with the material conditions that produce it.
Finally, since you want to posture: socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference. It’s a scientific framework (historical and dialectical materialism) built on analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and concrete conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you feel comfortable lecturing people who do. Liberalism and capitalism, by contrast, rely on idealist abstractions about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.” That’s about as scientific as the Bible. If you actually want to contribute something meaningful, start by learning how material analysis works instead of recycling warmed-over liberal common sense and calling it insight.
The only exhausting thing here is your seemingly unlimited arrogance to lecture others on topics you don’t understand beyond surface level vibes and idealism.
You made a claim, backed by nothing, and now you want evidence against it?
Evidenceless claims can be dismissed evidenceless.
I made a claim that would be trivial to disprove with a single example. The proof is that there are none. How exactly do I cite something that doesn’t exist?
What would you accept as proof? The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
We all know the answer is nothing
Yep, but it’s helpful to have that hang so it’s obvious to others.
Thanks, comrade! 🫡