Killstream Post-Mortem w. The Boys

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But Logo and Haz would fall under the criteria of intellectuals as they push the ideology.

I am not too familiar with either of them. From what I have seen, Logo seems to be a typical example of a vapid "intellectual". Haz seems intelligent and practically minded, though.

What part of the left do you think Lenin would not approve of? He was very anti-white and anti-christian himself. He would fully approve of most of what the left is doing down to the sexual degeneracy and censorship which he himself pushed.

In theory he would support all of the different types of "liberation", but he would definitely disapprove of the entire practical aspect of leftism today. Absolutely everything, from the people, groups, their ideas, the institutions they control and so on. Lenin believed in "scientific historical materialism", dual power and disciplined anti-state positions. The leftism of today is, instead, completely reactionary (in the literal meaning of the term), emotional-moral, anarchistic, riotous and uncontrolled. Rather than a determined vanguard, the left today consist in a bunch of servile, lumpen state collaborators.

As to your sources, I honestly did not expect that you would direct me to this libertarian nonsense. A lot of the stuff in that first article is ridiculous, stupid, unsubstantiated bullshit. The rest in all three articles - on which your point about industry is based - is technically correct but misleading. Yes, Western research, technology and design was involved in the production processes of the Soviet state, as it would be involved in the production processes of any state. The only alternative would be an insane autarchic mania. If we take that as our standard, then we could reasonably say that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance". That would be a technically correct assertion to make, but it would be profoundly misleading. I am disappointed that I had to waste my time looking at literal propaganda instead of genuine information about Soviet industry.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Use_of_foreign_specialists

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.

Is this convincing enough?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/126832

The Bolsheviks killed the old Russian intelligentsia and the remainder fled to the West. The Soviets simply didn't have the technical knowledge to build a modern industrial state. Without American engineers and technicians building machinery for them, teaching them how to operate it, and transferring technology, the USSR could never have industrialized.

Here's an article from the New York Times in 1930 showing American assistance in building up Soviet industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/1930/11/30/archives/44-american-firms-are-aiding-soviet-list-of-those-working-on.html

Before Communism Russia was the world's second-largest exporter of food. After communism, it became a land of perpetual starvation and poverty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_United_States%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_wheat_deal

Without grain imports from the US, the Soviets would've collapsed far earlier. The Western elites were always highly sympathetic to communism. It's not a coincidence that Marxist thinkers were taught at elite US universities since the end of WW2. Roosevelt's admin was full of flagrant Soviet spies like Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White#Assessments_of_Soviet_involvement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins#Relations_with_Soviet_Union

American and British capital built up Soviet industry. In 1942 the USSR was on the brink of collapse due to having lost its richest lands in Ukraine. Massive American aid kept Russia in the war and allowed her to triumph over Germany. The OSS also helped Mao win in China and David Rockefeller set up Chase bank in red China.

Communism was and still is an attack dog that was loosened by western capital against hostile regimes that would not allow anglo-American finance to plunder their lands. The cold war was not owed to any ideological differences with the USSR. There were no sanctions on the USSR until the 1980s when Reagan's neocons imposed sanctions for invading Afghanistan.

It was simply a matter of containing an Empire that had grown too big for comfort. The Soviets rejected the Baruch plan and thus set back the agenda of world government. This led to the US adopting a policy of containment against the Soviets.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am not rejecting your point. I am rejecting the meaning you assign to it. Yes, the Soviets made use of Western technology, Western experts and Western research. This does not even remotely equate "90% of Soviet industry" being built with US assistance. I assume that you meant Western rather than American here, since that's what your sources refer to.

The Americans did not build 90% of Soviet industry for free, out of the kindness of their hearts. This is nonsense. If you hire a foreign company to improve the productive facilities of your country then that does technically count as "assistance", yes, but it is misleading, because we are talking about business, not about some bleeding-heart foreign aid project. You are not even considering the implications of what it would mean for the USSR to construct its industry without using Western methods in the early 20th century. We're talking about basic, vital technologies for the extraction, refinement and use of raw materials. You wouldn't even be able to build a single factory without this type of Western "assistance", because the method for producing the steel you need relies on innovations from various Western nation-states. This is why I mentioned that by this standard, you could claim that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance". Without the knowledge to produce modern roads, steel, building materials and so on the very idea of Japanese industry is inconceivable. But to say that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance" would be profoundly misleading, because the Japanese still had to organise the creation of their industry, pay for the necessary expertise, then provide the funds, materials and labour necessary to complete their projects - just like the Soviets.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

it seems odd that we aided USSR at the same time as demonizing the commies during the red scare. Almost like the cold war was phony. That's the point. Not same as Japan, everyone knows we conquered them in WWII and set up permanent bases and no one denies we have aided them since.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am talking about pre-1945 in both cases.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yep tho we aided them before and after that