You're viewing part of a thread.
So are you saying it isn't propaganda? Because the west depicts the gulags as forced labor camps, not just prisons
Prisons in the US are also often forced labor camps. Prisons in the USSR, like most nations, were highly varied in intensity and quality.
They are depicted as places where people starved to death through neglect, who were summarily executed upon failure to work, threatened with starvation.
The bulk of this comes from WWII, when the Nazis invaded Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket. Famine increased and prisoners were not prioritized, leading to many dying.
They are depicted as places where millions of people where held and died. They are also depicted as places where not just criminals were sent, but political prisoners as well.
Fascists and Capitalists were indeed also sent to prison, yes.
I'm not saying the west has perfectly depicted it. The west is absolutely rife with propaganda. But there being even a kernel of truth to this is downright horrifying, and cause to call out the USSR as being authoritarian.
By your logic, every state that has ever existed is authoritarian. Looking at the metrics, the USSR has been more progressive for its time, both with respect to contemporary states and with respect to Tsarist Russia. As an example, they were far more leniant than the Tsar:
Prisons in the US are also often forced labor camps.
This is a whataboutism.
The bulk of this comes from WWII, when the Nazis invaded Ukraine, the USSR’s breadbasket. Famine increased and prisoners were not prioritized, leading to many dying.
Do you have a source? And given that you say "the bulk" and not all, what accounts for the remainder?
Fascists and Capitalists were indeed also sent to prison, yes.
Again, do you have a source?
By your logic, every state that has ever existed is authoritarian.
To varying degrees, pretty much yes.
This is a whataboutism. The USSR doesn't get a free pass just because the U.S. is shitty too.
I was not giving the USSR a "free pass." I was putting it into context. For its time, it was progressive.
Do you have a source? And given that you say "the bulk" and not all, what accounts for the remainder?
It's well known among Soviet Historians that famine occured during WWII and Prisoners were forced to take the brunt of the impact, rather than the average citizen or soldier.
Again, do you have a source?
What do you believe constitutes a "Political Prisoner" in the USSR? There were numerous Nazi Collaborators, Tsarists, and Bourgeois elements that attempted to destabilize the State. What would satisfy you as evidence, just examples, or what?
To varying degrees, pretty much yes.
Then, genuine question, do you believe that making progressive, positive reductions in mortality rates is an authoritarian thing to do?
I was not giving the USSR a “free pass.” I was putting it into context. For its time, it was progressive.
Force labor is still forced labor even if it is better than what the past was.
It’s well known among Soviet Historians that famine occured during WWII and Prisoners were forced to take the brunt of the impact, rather than the average citizen or soldier.
The graph you have attached to this statement doesn't have a source listed. And sorry, but I'm no historian, so I would like something better than "it is well known".
There were numerous Nazi Collaborators, Tsarists, and Bourgeois elements that attempted to destabilize the State. What would satisfy you as evidence, just examples, or what?
Ideally a primary source would be preferred.
Then, genuine question, do you believe that making progressive, positive reductions in mortality rates is an authoritarian thing to do?
This question at it's core is a whataboutism and therefore invalid. Being a progressive authoritarian still means you're an authoritarian.
Referring to the part of the conversation about the cause of starvation in gulags being the result of the nazis invading Ukraine, your second graph definitely helps support it, with the caveat being correlation does not imply causation.
Force labor is still forced labor even if it is better than what the past was.
Never said otherwise. I have not once said I wish to emulate the prison system of the USSR, just that they were progressive compared to their peers, and would have continued to remain progressive compared to its peers had the USSR not been illegally disbanded.
The graph you have attached to this statement doesn't have a source listed. And sorry, but I'm no historian, so I would like something better than "it is well known".
Is Wikipedia too Communist of a source?
Ideally a primary source would be preferred.
Primary source of what, exactly? Here's a pretty good article on the history of Nazi collaborators in the USSR being punished and imprisoned. There's also this Wikipedia page on the White Terror, where Tsarists slaughtered people until their defeat by the Bolsheviks and the Red Army.
This question at it's core is a whataboutism and therefore invalid. Being a progressive authoritarian still means you're an authoritarian.
You said all countries are authoritarian, why stick specifically to being upset at the USSR if they were less authoritarian than their contemporaries? Wouldn't a reduction in authoritarianism be a good thing?
just that they were progressive compared to their peers,
But this is just a whataboutism. I don't care how progressive they were. What matter is them being authoritarians.
Is Wikipedia too Communist of a source?
No, of course not. However I don't see your white graph anywhere on that article.
Primary source of what, exactly?
The makeup of people held in the gulags. The reasons why they're there, whether they had trials, whether they were de facto considered innocent/guilty, etc. While interesting, neither of the links you use explain it. How many of those 'criminals' where put there for something non-violent?
You said all countries are authoritarian, why stick specifically to being upset at the USSR if they were less authoritarian than their contemporaries?
Here's the thing, even in comparison to it's contemporaries I don't think the USSR was less authoritarian. On the basis of prisoner populations, even the US as grossly authoritarian as it has been had a lower prison population (obviously only up until Regan).
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2016/12/29/bjs2016/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#/media/File:USSR_custodial_population_in_1934-53.png
Wouldn’t a reduction in authoritarianism be a good thing?
Authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. Here's the thing, if you want to argue for socialism/communism, I'm all for it. But for the most part it is probably a terrible strategy to defend the USSR, and other countries that are portrayed as authoritarian dictatorships, because there is a great deal of truth to those portrayals from what it seems. You're just gonna scare off anybody even slightly closed minded.
It's probably a far better use of everybody's time to show that capitalism is a failure, that it's impossible to be paid the value you make under capitalism, that capitalism is just dictatorship in the workplace, etc. Those are the seeds you plant to get people to break out of their support for capitalism. Those are the ones that grow.
But this is just a whataboutism. I don't care how progressive they were. What matter is them being authoritarians.
You don't seem to care about much of anything. If progressing and improving systems isn't enough for you because it isn't immediately paradise for everyone and Utopia for all, then you're deeply unserious and purely serve as a contrarion for nobody's benefit.
The makeup of people held in the gulags. The reasons why they're there, whether they had trials, whether they were de facto considered innocent/guilty, etc. While interesting, neither of the links you use explain it. How many of those 'criminals' where put there for something non-violent?
Where are you getting the idea that large percentages of people were locked up without trial? Don't you have to provide evidence for your claims as well?
Authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. Here's the thing, if you want to argue for socialism/communism, I'm all for it. But for the most part it is probably a terrible strategy to defend the USSR, and other countries that are portrayed as authoritarian dictatorships, because there is a great deal of truth to those portrayals from what it seems. You're just gonna scare off anybody even slightly closed minded.
"Authoritarianism" as admitted by yourself is a buzzword descriptor for every state, and is just a vibe. You don't care how countries compare to their peers or their previous conditions, just vibes.
Additionally, it is important to accurately depict and defend the USSR. While there were numerous issues, there were numerous resounding successes as well. Defending the real merits of AES is important, because if one is a Socialist, presumably they want Socialism!
It's probably a far better use of everybody's time to show that capitalism is a failure, that it's impossible to be paid the value you make under capitalism, that capitalism is just dictatorship in the workplace, etc. Those are the seeds you plant to get people to break out of their support for capitalism. Those are the ones that grow.
What makes you think I don't do that as well?
You don’t seem to care about much of anything.
You don't need to personally attack me.
If progressing and improving systems isn’t enough for you because it isn’t immediately paradise for everyone and Utopia for all
That wasn't my point. The point is, you can't point to the soviet gulags and say it wasn't authoritarian, not without evidence.
Where are you getting the idea that large percentages of people were locked up without trial? Don’t you have to provide evidence for your claims as well?
You've made the implicit claim that those held in the gulags were held there with good, justified reasons. And then when you were asked to provide a source for it you gave me articles about the various places nazis went to after the war. Do you have evidence or not?
“Authoritarianism” as admitted by yourself is a buzzword descriptor for every state
No, it's a scale. Most societies/countries are on it, but not all. Additionally, it is not an inherent part of a society/country. No part of that is vibes based. Subjective, partially, but that's the nature of unquantifiable definitions whether you like it or not.
A state that controls people's speech is more authoritarian than one that does not. A state that controls people's movement is more authoritarian than one that does not. There are a million different ways that a state can be unquantifiably authoritarian, but it is still comparable, discussions on it can still be based on facts, and so on. No vibes are needed.
You don’t care how countries compare to their peers or their previous conditions
You can stop with the personal attacks.
What makes you think I don’t do that as well?
You seemed to have missed the "It’s probably a far better use of everybody’s time " part.
