Has Marxism ever worked on a large scale?

[XieJinyuan]

I'm not going to belabor the point, but just ask this simple question.

As far as I know, the answer is 'no' but it is possible I could be wrong...

EDIT - And by Marxism, I really mean Marxism-Leninism

[GracchusBabeuf]

Depends on what you mean by "worked". Take the Soviet Union, for example, where Marxism-Leninism was applied. This resulted in some industrialization, but also resulted in a dictatorship and the deaths of many people. So it was not beneficial to the working class. But, I am an anarchist, so maybe biased against M-L.

[Picky Bugger]

It hasn't been wholly applied on a large scale. The Soviet Union was certainly not an accurate application of Marxism-Leninism even if the intention was present at the beginning. The Union may have succeeded in some respects but as a complete system it has never existed.

Saying that the fact that it has not be applied in no way detracts from the validity of the theory.

[MikeSC]

No, not really. Though, a lot of the last century has been spent with Imperialistic countries (I'm naming no names here, America) invading, corrupting and blockading countries that manage to get rid of their military dicators in favour of socialists, or that elect socialist parties.

Like Cambodia, for example. Everyone knows what those nasty commies (populists really, but nevermind that) the Khmer Rouge did to the country. Do people know that the Khmer Rouge rose after a long occupation by the US, that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents? Or that the US and allies invaded because of the legitimate election of a socialist party? (EDIT: Damn, I started writing about a lot of stuff at the same time- so it's worded clumsily and that last bit about the election was part of another bit about Allende, rather than Cambodia. I thought I'd leave this paragraph here and acknowledge my mistake, though- rather than just edit it. I can't be arsed re-writing it either ;).)

Or Vietnam! I recommend Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) if you wanna have a real idea of what these socialist states had going against them. None of these have been "naturally" vicious, as it goes in the media. They adapted to fight off the extraordinary viciousness of the Imperialists.

Socialism has pretty much always been tried in third world countries. And pretty much always with the most powerful country in the world invading, assassinating, restricting, fomenting coups and scalping it's children.

Can you say that capitalism "works"? A system in place in all developed countries, yet we have regular crises, millions go hungry, without healthcare, without the bare necessities even in the best of times. And how is even this level of failure sustained during the best of times? Mass slave labour, sweatshop labour, child labour; the subjugation of most of the world's people to sustain the lifestyles of the few.

EDIT: I'm not saying that I support the Khmer Rouge, or that the adaptation in these countries to violence was a good thing, by the way. Just that these countries couldn't have been expected to reach a communist/socialist/Marxist system, never mind form one then perfect it.

[F9]

It hasnt applied on large scale, neither in small..Communism have never existed so far, in any of its "forms.

Moved to OI Learning

Fuserg9:star:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Of course Marxism has "worked" on a large scale. There have been communist revolutions in plenty of countries, with varying degrees of success. The SU is a prime example, and whether or not you agree with some of the actions of the SU leaders is beside the point.

[Picky Bugger]

But surely these revolutions have not created a fully blown Marxist system that could be called truly Communist. I assume that the original post meant over a prolonged period of time and so no Marxism has not worked.

[NecroCommie]

Communism cannot have worked because communism is a world system. Individual countries can achieve socialism at most, and in the long run even socialism will be threatened due to class war and outside preassure, unless revolution spreads.

The second issue is what on earth do you mean by working?

If you mean granting worker rights and equality beyond capitalist states then socialism has worked many many times.

If you mean sustainability, then one has to also define socialism. I think that what I would call the socialist era of soviet union is more than enough to prove the economic sustainability of socialism. One should also count the small scale successes of socialism ---> Kibbutses, Paris commune and several other communes around the world.

If you mean ultimate transformation to communism then no, socialism has not yet worked, but I think its mostly due to internal conflicts of socialist countries ---> class struggle. And then there is the lack of "true" democracy in many socialist states, although those states were better off in this than their capitalist counterparts.

[Glenn Beck]

If you mean ultimate transformation to communism then no, socialism has not yet worked, but I think its mostly due to internal conflicts of socialist countries ---> class struggle. And then there is the lack of "true" democracy in many socialist states, although those states were better off in this than their capitalist counterparts.

Capitalism had five centuries to transform from small merchants in Italy and landlords charging rent to tenant farmers to what you see today. The USSR was the first socialist revolution to successfully found a state and it ran for the better part of a century and changed human history. There are even strong arguments to be made that so many of the reforms that made living in developed capitalist nations so much more tolerable were due specifically to the threat of international communism and the need to compete in offering worker's a nicer package. Furthermore the former Eastern Bloc nations with their new market economies are for the most part doing quite badly and many are politically unstable. Their future is by no means certain so to declare that free-market capitalism has won in Eastern Europe strikes me as quite premature.

The idea that is so prevalent in the culture that the post-Cold War era marks the "end of history" and that the disappearance of socialism as a major power in the world is permanent after such a small (in historical terms) battle is frankly so utterly bizarre to me that I can't understand why anyone who has actually thought about it for more than a few minutes could sincerely believe it.

[MarxSchmarx]

For all its faults, the soviet union in many respects "worked."

The goal of the soviet union, at least after 1930 or so, was never to implement wealth for its citizenry on a grand scale. It was to defend the borders of the USSR and modernize. On both counts they succeeded. Moreover, if one looks at the fact that a country and economy as desperately shambled as the soviet one after wwii, and considers that they almost took down the Americans, who basically escaped the war untouched, this is no mean feat.

The subsequent collapse was due to a lot of things. We still don't know if it was inherently a problem of their socialism or catastrophically bad political system. But if looked at as feed for the military beast, the Soviet economy was really quite successful.

[PRC-UTE]

from the Starry Plough, magazine of the IRSP:


According to the WHO: 'Even globalisation's vaunted 'winners' such as China achieved much of their growth without adhering to anything approximating free market policies. Most of China's poverty reduction and improvements in population health occured before integration into the global market.

Between 1952 and 1982, infant mortality fell from 200 to 34 per 1000 live births and lfe expectancy at birth increased from about 35 to 68 years.'There was roughly the same process in China, the USSR and Cuba*. Industrialisation and economic development happened much faster than in the West, and lifted former colonies out of deep poverty. These were the most significant eliminatinos of poverty on a mass scale in human history, as well as the only effective anti-drugs campaigns ever carried out.

Communists put an end to centuries of famine, ignorance and backwardness in a single generation in some countries. The labour of the proletariat was used for the betterment of all, not the enrichment of the few. So yes, Marxism has worked.



*Cuba however focused on specific areas such as biotechnology and medical advances

[XieJinyuan]

Depends on what you mean by "worked". Take the Soviet Union, for example, where Marxism-Leninism was applied. This resulted in some industrialization, but also resulted in a dictatorship and the deaths of many people. So it was not beneficial to the working class. But, I am an anarchist, so maybe biased against M-L.

What I mean by "worked" will become clear presently.


It hasn't been wholly applied on a large scale. The Soviet Union was certainly not an accurate application of Marxism-Leninism even if the intention was present at the beginning. The Union may have succeeded in some respects but as a complete system it has never existed.

Saying that the fact that it has not be applied in no way detracts from the validity of the theory.

That's like the opposite of saying, "In theory, Austrian economics would improve the welfare of all people." Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. That's not the point. My question was: "Has Marxism-Leninism ever worked?" (in practice)

That people are completely unable to put Marxism-Leninism into practice successfully casts grave doubt on its usefulness.


No, not really. Though, a lot of the last century has been spent with Imperialistic countries (I'm naming no names here, America) invading, corrupting and blockading countries that manage to get rid of their military dicators in favour of socialists, or that elect socialist parties.

The US didn't invade every single socialist country; don't blame them for their failures.

It's facile.



Like Cambodia, for example. Everyone knows what those nasty commies (populists really, but nevermind that) the Khmer Rouge did to the country. Do people know that the Khmer Rouge rose after a long occupation by the US, that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents?

That's not germane to what I am saying.


Or Vietnam! I recommend Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) if you wanna have a real idea of what these socialist states had going against them. None of these have been "naturally" vicious, as it goes in the media. They adapted to fight off the extraordinary viciousness of the Imperialists.

They had to put people in 'reeducation camps' to fight off the US imperialists?


Socialism has pretty much always been tried in third world countries. And pretty much always with the most powerful country in the world invading, assassinating, restricting, fomenting coups and scalping it's children.

I want sources for this claim.


Can you say that capitalism "works"? A system in place in all developed countries, yet we have regular crises, millions go hungry, without healthcare, without the bare necessities even in the best of times.

These crises happen because of scarcity and overpopulation, not because of the market.

They occurred under Marxist-Leninist states, too.

They are facts of life and asking people to forsake their self-interest is only going to make them worse ... it's like asking bears not to shit in the woods.


EDIT: I'm not saying that I support the Khmer Rouge, or that the adaptation in these countries to violence was a good thing, by the way. Just that these countries couldn't have been expected to reach a communist/socialist/Marxist system, never mind form one then perfect it.

Do you have a defense for Marxism-Leninism that doesn't involve elaborate excuses?

Incidentally, not every Marxist-Leninist state was invaded or arm-twisted by the West.

Case in point: the countryside of PDR Laos, granted, was bombed extensively during the Second Indochina War, but there's no way you can possibly blame the piss-poor poverty they are still in now on the West, or the US, in particular. In fact, they're now the poorest country in East Asia. Cambodia and Vietnam, who have relatively liberal economies, have fared substantially better.


Of course Marxism has "worked" on a large scale. There have been communist revolutions in plenty of countries, with varying degrees of success. The SU is a prime example, and whether or not you agree with some of the actions of the SU leaders is beside the point.

That's like saying extreme right-wing governments worked (i.e., were implemented).


Communism cannot have worked because communism is a world system. Individual countries can achieve socialism at most, and in the long run even socialism will be threatened due to class war and outside preassure, unless revolution spreads.

Better said, socialism is threatened by human nature.



If you mean sustainability, then one has to also define socialism. I think that what I would call the socialist era of soviet union is more than enough to prove the economic sustainability of socialism. One should also count the small scale successes of socialism ---> Kibbutses, Paris commune and several other communes around the world.


The Soviet Union was hardly what I would call sustainable. If it were sustainable, then no black market would have emerged.

Kibbutzim are very small-scale. Saying they are successful implementations of Communism (and my OP asked about Marxism-Leninism, regardless) is like saying splitting rent is a successful implementation of Communism.

Besides, there's no way in hell I would live in that hot, rude country.


If you mean ultimate transformation to communism then no, socialism has not yet worked, but I think its mostly due to internal conflicts of socialist countries ---> class struggle.

'Self-interest'


And then there is the lack of "true" democracy in many socialist states, although those states were better off in this than their capitalist counterparts.

I would like to see evidence for this statement.


Capitalism had five centuries to transform from small merchants in Italy and landlords charging rent to tenant farmers to what you see today. The USSR was the first socialist revolution to successfully found a state and it ran for the better part of a century and changed human history.

Yes, but the technology, methods and experience already existed by then, so you're not exactly making a ceteris paribus comparison.

In other words, of course no one modernized in the 16th century: modern equipment had yet to be invented.


The subsequent collapse was due to a lot of things. We still don't know if it was inherently a problem of their socialism or catastrophically bad political system. But if looked at as feed for the military beast, the Soviet economy was really quite successful.

Marxism-Leninism is good for building a military superpower; point taken.


from the Starry Plough, magazine of the IRSP:

There was roughly the same process in China, the USSR and Cuba*. Industrialisation and economic development happened much faster than in the West, and lifted former colonies out of deep poverty.

This is not a comparison with all things being equal, like I said.

Also, market liberalization lifted the most people out of poverty in China.


Communists put an end to centuries of famine, ignorance and backwardness in a single generation in some countries.

I agree about the ignorance and backwardness, but that's more a function of Westernization in general. If you read about Chinese history, you'll notice there were movements towards dropping certain regrettable backward practices well before Mao.

[NecroCommie]

Better said, socialism is threatened by human nature.
There is no such thing as absolute "human nature", as human morale, ethics, taboos and identification are forever shifting through time. And socialism is only threatened by capitalist states and capitalist class. That is the only thing I meant.



The Soviet Union was hardly what I would call sustainable. If it were sustainable, then no black market would have emerged.

Kibbutzim are very small-scale. Saying they are successful implementations of Communism (and my OP asked about Marxism-Leninism, regardless) is like saying splitting rent is a successful implementation of Communism.

Since when was the black market a unit of sustainability? And if it were, capitalism would have dissolved aeons ago.

And if economy is sustainable in small scale, it is very possible to sustain it in large scale. And even Marxism-Leninism aims ultimately at forming communes in some regard, so yes: the examples are relevant.


'Self-interest'
...of capitalist class against the working class. Thus----> class struggle.


I would like to see evidence for this statement.
Ostalgia alone would do the trick. But since you are a nice guy ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2408/

[XieJinyuan]

There is no such thing as absolute "human nature", as human morale, ethics, taboos and identification are forever shifting through time.

It's pretty much a constant throughout history that, if people have the chance to become zillionaires, they will do their damndest to take it. Variation in pay according to variation in ability (supply) and need for occupation (demand) has also been fairly constant throughout history. Even in Sumer, I'm sure those who could read, write and cipher made more than the farmers, and for a good reason.



And socialism is only threatened by capitalist states and capitalist class. That is the only thing I meant.

It's also threatened by people not wanting to wait in line for hours to get bread.



Since when was the black market a unit of sustainability? And if it were, capitalism would have dissolved aeons ago.

I didn't say anything about how sustainable it was. It arose in the Soviet Union because their system of allocation was undesirable.


...of capitalist class against the working class. Thus----> class struggle.

What is the capitalist class? Is this some cabal of moustache-twirling, tophat-wearing villains who meet in smoke-filled rooms to determine the fate of the world, or people who had luck + ability to become rich?


Ostalgia alone would do the trick. But since you are a nice guy ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2408/

What about the people getting shot when they disagreed?

In my home country, dissidents are still imprisoned regularly, even though a lot Marxism-Leninism doctrine has (thankfully) been dropped in real life.

BTW, I think US democracy is a sham, too, if it helps.

[PRC-UTE]

The US didn't invade every single socialist country; don't blame them for their failures.

It's probably easier to list the socialist states they didn't invade then list the ones they had a hand in attacking.



The Soviet Union was hardly what I would call sustainable. If it were sustainable, then no black market would have emerged.

you think capitalism doesn't have a thriving black market?



This is not a comparison with all things being equal, like I said.

Also, market liberalization lifted the most people out of poverty in China.

That's your opinion. However, the World Health Organisation's facts contradict this.



I agree about the ignorance and backwardness, but that's more a function of Westernization in general. If you read about Chinese history, you'll notice there were movements towards dropping certain regrettable backward practices well before Mao.

Not in the specific areas I mentioned- like solving China's huge drug addiction problem. I don't believe for a second that the Kummintong- a loose collection of warlords and disparate liberal factions- would've modernised China on the scale that the communists did. It was only by withdrawing from the global market system that a Chinese state could then develop its economy and infrastructure as it pleased.

Excuse the shite spelling

[XieJinyuan]

It's probably easier to list the socialist states they didn't invade then list the ones they had a hand in attacking.

Then please do so.


you think capitalism doesn't have a thriving black market?

It does, but in things that are illegal. The Soviet black market dealt in ordinary shit like cigarettes, meat and toiletries. It was absolutely sordid:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900922&slug=1094485



That's your opinion. However, the World Health Organisation's facts contradict this.


D'oh!

http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/21FB544E-DF52-49AA-ABEB-B67E333E704F/0/chn_fig1.jpg

Source: http://www.wpro.who.int/countries/2008/chn/



Not in the specific areas I mentioned- like solving China's huge drug addiction problem.

Execution will do that to you.



I don't believe for a second that the Kummintong- a loose collection of warlords and disparate liberal factions- would've modernised China on the scale that the communists did. It was only by withdrawing from the global market system that a Chinese state could then develop its economy and infrastructure as it pleased.


False dichotomy. All countries in East Asia that have already modernized or are in the process of modernization either did so without Marxism-Leninism at all (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Taiwan ... which, incidentally or not, make the 'Jakota Triangle' of first-world countries in East Asia) or had an unsuccessful experiment with Marxism-Leninism (e.g., PRC China, Vietnam, Mongolia).

In contrast, the two shittiest Asian countries, Laos and North Korea, are both Marxist-Leninist states. The first is one of the most broke-ass countries in the world and the other is pretty much a hellhole no one ever wants to visit.



Excuse the shite spelling

Kuomintang is the generally accepted Romanization. However, it is archaic; I prefer Guomindang.

[mykittyhasaboner]

That's like saying extreme right-wing governments worked (i.e., were implemented).No its not. If we look at the after effects of worker states implementing Marxist-Leninist policies, we see that workers were much better off than before their respective revolutions. Take for instance Cuba (http://directaction.org.au/issue8/cuban_revolution_50_years_of_accomplishments), or the Soviet Union following the first five-year plan (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm).


It does, but in things that are illegal. The Soviet black market dealt in ordinary shit like cigarettes, meat and toiletries. It was absolutely sordid:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...2&slug=1094485 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900922&slug=1094485)The source you provide is less than reputable, but even so, it was written in 1990 when the late Soviet Union had undergone free market reforms that were introduced by Gorbachev. So this "half-desert, half mideval bizzare" :rolleyes: black market is of no surprise.


D'oh!

http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/21FB544E-DF52-49AA-ABEB-B67E333E704F/0/chn_fig1.jpg

Source: http://www.wpro.who.int/countries/2008/chn/All this graph proves is that the free-market liberalization crap that you advocate is less effective than Marxist-Leninism. If you notice the life expectancy rate grows at a faster rate from 1950 to the mid 1970's during the time Mao was at the head of the Communist Party.



In contrast, the two shittiest Asian countries, Laos and North Korea, are both Marxist-Leninist states. The first is one of the most broke-ass countries in the world and the other is pretty much a hellhole no one ever wants to visit.Please do not refer to countries as "shitty" and make horrible generalizations with little substance behind it, this is racist and very disrespectful.

[JimmyJazz]

EDIT - And by Marxism, I really mean Marxism-Leninism

well that's dumb

[XieJinyuan]

No its not. If we look at the after effects of worker states implementing Marxist-Leninist policies, we see that workers were much better off than before their respective revolutions. Take for instance Cuba (http://directaction.org.au/issue8/cuban_revolution_50_years_of_accomplishments), or the Soviet Union following the first five-year plan (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1933/01/07.htm).

If Cuba didn't have serious problems, no one would risk his life trying to get out on iffy homemade boats. Where's the logic in that? "My country is great, I'm going to try to cross 140 km of open water on a raft to reach Florida." Hey I don't like hard work either, and am trying my level best to avoid it through academics, but the truth is that it takes labor of all kinds to create wealth. Nothing else really works.

As for your other source: I gave a number of instances of countries that modernized or are modernizing without killing millions of their own people in the process. Also I question the neutrality of a Lenin speech.

If you are concerned with equality, civil rights, health care, etc. and desire a government approach, it would be wiser to turn towards one which has a track record of success, i.e., social democracy and Stockholm school economics.



The source you provide is less than reputable, but even so, it was written in 1990 when the late Soviet Union had undergone free market reforms that were introduced by Gorbachev. So this "half-desert, half mideval bizzare" :rolleyes: black market is of no surprise.
There is nothing new about the black market in the Soviet Union. There have always been shortages - and then illegal dealers to fill the gap for the right price. The Soviet economy has never worked efficiently enough to put black-marketeers out of business. But talking about the black market was taboo. When Konstantin Simis, an attorney and professor of law until he emigrated to the United States in 1977, was working in Moscow on an early draft of his book ``U.S.S.R.: The Corrupt Society,'' the KGB confiscated the manuscript.
Corrupt underground economy, shortages everywhere, police state stifling all criticism ... whenever someone says "Soviet Union", the word "paradise" echoes in my mind. And don't pretend this stuff didn't happen. There is probably not one old man or woman who lived behind the Iron Curtain who will tell you anything else was true.

lern2reading



All this graph proves is that the free-market liberalization crap that you advocate is less effective than Marxist-Leninism. If you notice the life expectancy rate grows at a faster rate from 1950 to the mid 1970's during the time Mao was at the head of the Communist Party.


It's called 'diminishing returns'. If you projected that initial life expectancy rate of change out to 2009, it would be like 130 years.

lern2math

Incidentally, I am both Chinese and studying a numerate discipline (economics) ... the (unwarranted) arrogance, condescension and presumption I see here is absolutely staggering.

Fun fact: The Cultural Revolution is now referred to as "十年浩劫" or "ten-year calamity"


Please do not refer to countries as "shitty" and make horrible generalizations with little substance behind it, this is racist and very disrespectful.

There's plenty of substance behind what I said. Laos is a stagnant, broke-ass country. That's a quantifiable fact, not an opinion. And North Korea just sucks, the only people there with a full share of flesh on their bones are in the military or government:

http://www.scifidrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nk_2girls.jpg

Power to the proletariat!

And, "racist", my ass, haven't you noticed I am also Asian yet? I'd be surprised if you weren't white, as only whites ever feel they have to make perfectly innocuous comments all about race. There is nothing in the Lao or Korean genetic material that requires them to live under a shitty economic system. The Lao minority in Thailand and the contrast between North and South Korea surely validate this assertion.


well that's dumb

Explain

[Decolonize The Left]

Explain

Marxism is an economic theory. You have reduced Marxism to Marxist-Leninism, which is a socio-political-economic theory. It is one strand of Marxism and in my opinion, totally bunk.

- August

[XieJinyuan]

Marxism is an economic theory. You have reduced Marxism to Marxist-Leninism, which is a socio-political-economic theory. It is one strand of Marxism and in my opinion, totally bunk.

- August

What other forms have been conceived / implemented?

[Decolonize The Left]

What other forms have been conceived / implemented?

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Marxist_schools_of_thought) is wikipedia's page on Marxism. You can see under the section "schools of thought," that there are a great number aside from Marxism-Leninism.

It's late and I have to work tomorrow morning, so I can't really provide more than that at the moment. Check it out though - there's a wealth of information.

- August

[XieJinyuan]

Alright, this is what I had in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism

And they point out, rightly, that Maoism is simply a development of Marxism-Leninism

So ... that leaves Trotskyism. What is vastly superior about that one?

[NecroCommie]

If Cuba didn't have serious problems, no one would risk his life trying to get out on iffy homemade boats. Where's the logic in that? "My country is great, I'm going to try to cross 140 km of open water on a raft to reach Florida." Hey I don't like hard work either, and am trying my level best to avoid it through academics, but the truth is that it takes labor of all kinds to create wealth. Nothing else really works.
It takes only labor, and that is why we are against capitalism, in which you must only be born in order to get rich, or be doomed to poverty. Cubas only serious problem is the capitalist trade block, which is not only unjustified but also disastrous for the economy. You can also find out that Cuban "refugees" are much fewer in numbers than refugees from other third world countries.


As for your other source: I gave a number of instances of countries that modernized or are modernizing without killing millions of their own people in the process. Also I question the neutrality of a Lenin speech.
You can question the neutrality, but the logic in that speech is indisputable. Also any capitalist development is paid in the blood of workers in imperialist neo-colonies.


If you are concerned with equality, civil rights, health care, etc. and desire a government approach, it would be wiser to turn towards one which has a track record of success, i.e., social democracy and Stockholm school economics.
Trust me: Capitalism is shitty in social democracy too. Communists have achieved the most rights in our history. Marxist-leninist communist to be precice.



There is nothing new about the black market in the Soviet Union. There have always been shortages - and then illegal dealers to fill the gap for the right price. The Soviet economy has never worked efficiently enough to put black-marketeers out of business. But talking about the black market was taboo. When Konstantin Simis, an attorney and professor of law until he emigrated to the United States in 1977, was working in Moscow on an early draft of his book ``U.S.S.R.: The Corrupt Society,'' the KGB confiscated the manuscript.
Corrupt underground economy, shortages everywhere, police state stifling all criticism ... whenever someone says "Soviet Union", the word "paradise" echoes in my mind. And don't pretend this stuff didn't happen. There is probably not one old man or woman who lived behind the Iron Curtain who will tell you anything else was true.
1977... Pretty capitalist era in soviet union if you ask me. Your descriptions also sound like capitalism in every way.

You will also find out that ex-eastern bloc citizens want the communism back. http://www.france24.com/en/20081003-wave-nostalgia-former-east-germany-berlin-gdr-stasi
lern2reading



Incidentally, I am both Chinese and studying a numerate discipline (economics) ... the (unwarranted) arrogance, condescension and presumption I see here is absolutely staggering.

Fun fact: The Cultural Revolution is now referred to as "十年浩劫" or "ten-year calamity"
So you are not only from purely capitalist country, but you are also of the upper class. Gee, that sure makes you sound so neutral and objective.

Besides, I would not call maoists even a brand of communism, let alone true marxism-leninism.



There's plenty of substance behind what I said. Laos is a stagnant, broke-ass country. That's a quantifiable fact, not an opinion. And North Korea just sucks, the only people there with a full share of flesh on their bones are in the military or government:


Power to the proletariat!
As I said: Maoism can be hardly called communist. And dont even start with the pictures. Do you want me to find out all the proof of capitalist injustice?


And, "racist", my ass, haven't you noticed I am also Asian yet? I'd be surprised if you weren't white, as only whites ever feel they have to make perfectly innocuous comments all about race. There is nothing in the Lao or Korean genetic material that requires them to live under a shitty economic system. The Lao minority in Thailand and the contrast between North and South Korea surely validate this assertion.

Now you simply proved you are racist. You expressed your generalized attitude towards all white people, not understanding that being asian or white has nothing to do with anything. It is you who originally thought that the two countries are "unvisitable" While that is clearly a lie since it is a finnish trend to visit Vietnam: A tropic and exotic country.

[NecroCommie]

Alright, this is what I had in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Communism

And they point out, rightly, that Maoism is simply a development of Marxism-Leninism

So ... that leaves Trotskyism. What is vastly superior about that one?
It points out that maoists see themselves as marxist-leninist, and that maoism has originated in communism, but so what? Modern chinese capitalism evolved from maoist society, but it does not mean that modern chinese capitalism is maoist.

Whats so superior about capitalism? Any brand of communism or anarchism beats the living shit out of capitalism.

Moderators! XieJinyuan has clearly decided his oppinions long before this conversation. His soul is forever lost to us :D, and this thread therefore pointless.

[XieJinyuan]

It takes only labor, and that is why we are against capitalism, in which you must only be born in order to get rich, or be doomed to poverty. Cubas only serious problem is the capitalist trade block, which is not only unjustified but also disastrous for the economy. You can also find out that Cuban "refugees" are much fewer in numbers than refugees from other third world countries.

Link please

Also lots of them drown when they try to make their passage to Florida, so you're not taking those into account.



You can question the neutrality, but the logic in that speech is indisputable.

I'm disputing it.


Also any capitalist development is paid in the blood of workers in imperialist neo-colonies.

No



Trust me: Capitalism is shitty in social democracy too.


80% of Swedish work force belong to a labor union. Few, if any are poor. That sounds like a worker's country to me.


Communists have achieved the most rights in our history. Marxist-leninist communist to be precice.

That's too comical to dignify


1977... Pretty capitalist era in soviet union if you ask me. Your descriptions also sound like capitalism in every way.

That's because there's always been a black market, because the Soviet system of allocation never worked

When was pre-capitalist SU? Was that when they were killing lots of people?



You will also find out that ex-eastern bloc citizens want the communism back. http://www.france24.com/en/20081003-wave-nostalgia-former-east-germany-berlin-gdr-stasi

lern2reading
Klaus Schröder says schools hardly deal with this period of history and people usually think of cool kitsch rather than the regime's brutal reality. Indeed, one tourist attraction in Berlin is a city safari in an authentic trabant. And at the end of September an exhibition of official East German art was opened – including works commissioned by communist leader Erich Honecker.

“Ostalgie”, or Nostalgia for the East, appears to be thriving in the German capital. Guido Sand, curator of the exhibition "Art in the GDR", certainly thinks so. “This sort of nostalgia is a fashion, which like all fashions will eventually fade. But it will certainly be around for the next decade or two, particularly here in Berlin.” Whether it's a passing trend or not, the wave of nostalgia for East Germany appears to have swept away some of the regime's more unpleasant aspects.Not exactly a ringing endorsement

All the East German surplus clothes I have are crap. You can tell they're East German by all the little holes and stitches. I used to have an East German canteen. I got rid of it because I got a mouthful of plastic flavoring every time I drank from it. However, West German and Swedish gear, etc. is great stuff, very high quality.


So you are not only from purely capitalist country, but you are also of the upper class. Gee, that sure makes you sound so neutral and objective.

I am from the People's Republic of China, comrade, and I live in the US. Neither one of them is purely capitalist.

And you're from Finland, so I take it you aren't mired in poverty yourself.



Besides, I would not call maoists even a brand of communism, let alone true marxism-leninism.


Why not?



As I said: Maoism can be hardly called communist. And dont even start with the pictures. Do you want me to find out all the proof of capitalist injustice?

omg you're generalizing capitalism



Now you simply proved you are racist. You expressed your generalized attitude towards all white people, not understanding that being asian or white has nothing to do with anything.

I said 'only' white people, not 'all' white people. Those are two very different things. Specifically I am talking about the kind of white people who come from upper middle class backgrounds, aren't even close to carbon neutral, etc., who feel guilty about being white and rich, so they take up the Communist banner and go around accusing people of being "racist" in inappropriate circumstances.



It is you who originally thought that the two countries are "unvisitable"

No

And that wouldn't be racist anyway, even if I did say it.

I believe New Jersey is unvisitable, but that doesn't mean I believe people from New Jersey are inferior

Now, if I had said, "Nobody wants to visit North Korea because it's full of gooks", you would have been justified in calling me racist


While that is clearly a lie since it is a finnish trend to visit Vietnam: A tropic and exotic country.

I described North Korea as a country no one would ever want to visit. Nowhere did I describe Vietnam (which has undergone market liberalization) as such. I would very much like to visit it myself.

lern2reading

(Incidentally, Vietnam's geographic advantages have little if anything to do with its economy at all. North Korea has some really great landscapes, too, but no one wants to go there because it's ruled by a psychotic tyrant.)


Whats so superior about capitalism? Any brand of communism or anarchism beats the living shit out of capitalism.

What's superior about it is that it allocates resources efficiently, which is why people who don't have it tend to clamor for it. You seem to be forgetting that the implementation of a market economy in the Soviet Union came about not because it was forced on them by greedy mustachioed old white men wearing silk hats, it came about because the great masses demanded it.

As for scarcity, violence, greed, immorality, etc., these happen under pretty much any system. Scarcity in particular is common to all economies; it is a physical fact. Even if the world can theoretically produce enough food, clothing, shelter and everything else for six billion people, and manage the logistics of distribution equitably (which itself is daunting to say the least), human nature is the greatest roadblock of all. Nature is our enemy, to be sure, but we are an even greater enemy to ourselves. Homo homini lupus est. All these evils I named, they're not going away any time soon; please watch the video in my signature.


Moderators! XieJinyuan has clearly decided his oppinions long before this conversation. His soul is forever lost to us :D, and this thread therefore pointless.

I didn't move this thread here. They did. It was originally in the parent forum.

[danyboy27]

i really want to see a discusion bobkindle vs XieJinyuan

[MikeSC]

The US didn't invade every single socialist country; don't blame them for their failures.

It's facile.Invasions, carpet bombing, organising coups, economic blockades of third world countries. That's no mere excuse. It's blaming them for something they actively and openly sought, and threw their full weight behind, the most powerful country on earth. It's not something you can just disregard if you want a reality based idea of socialism's struggles, rather than a pretty little neat anti-communist narrative to make Hollywood films out of.


That's not germane to what I am saying.Of course it is. You're frankly an idiot if you think you can make an accurate judgement of a country without considering the circumstances it finds itself in. Which countries can be expected to prosper peacefully under a decade of carpet-bombing by the US?


They had to put people in 'reeducation camps' to fight off the US imperialists?People turn vicious in vicious circumstances- it's not to be supported, but when you're faced an uninvited invading force massacring your people, razing your towns and villages, destroying farmland and instituting camps of their own- it's understandable that people turn into cocks. Which is what I said, people adapted. When vicious circumstances are imposed people turn vicious.


I want sources for this claim.Which? The scalping?
http://www.mnsd.net/mnhs/apush/unitXV/Varnado_Simpson.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/64344.stm <--- this one mentions other mutilation (the carving of the company's name on people's chests).
There's a documentary I watched years ago, with one of the soldiers in Vietnam talking about him scalping and baby-killing and whatnot. Those sources will have to do.


These crises happen because of scarcity and overpopulation, not because of the market.

They occurred under Marxist-Leninist states, too.

They are facts of life and asking people to forsake their self-interest is only going to make them worse ... it's like asking bears not to shit in the woods.So the conclusion is "nothing works"? What's the point of this thread then? Scarcity and overpopulation, bullshit it is. And what exactly are these "facts of life"? What are you even talking about here? Scarcity is a "fact of life" in industrialised, first world, capitalist-for-centuries countries but in third world, unindustrialised, war-torn vaguely "Marxist"-for-decades countries it's a fault of Marxism?


Case in point: the countryside of PDR Laos, granted, was bombed extensively during the Second Indochina War, but there's no way you can possibly blame the piss-poor poverty they are still in now on the West, or the US, in particular. In fact, they're now the poorest country in East Asia. Cambodia and Vietnam, who have relatively liberal economies, have fared substantially better.You whinge about how not all Marxist states have been invaded and whatnot by the US, yet the best example you find is one that was bombed substantially- by the US? An unindustrialised third world country cannot be expected to just "work" because the Marxists managed to kick out the colonialists a few mere decades ago.

And by what standard do you judge? The "Human Development Index" has Laos at #133, over Cambodia. Not over Vietnam, but over plenty of capitalist countries. Over a lot of the countries where our shite gets grown and made in sweatshops, or mined out of the ground.

EDIT: What's all this "lern2reading" childishness?

[mykittyhasaboner]

If Cuba didn't have serious problems, no one would risk his life trying to get out on iffy homemade boats. Where's the logic in that? "My country is great, I'm going to try to cross 140 km of open water on a raft to reach Florida." Hey I don't like hard work either, and am trying my level best to avoid it through academics, but the truth is that it takes labor of all kinds to create wealth. Nothing else really works.

This is such irrelevant drivel that its sickening. The Cuban revolution introduced the first government on the island that could be called a democracy. After hundreds of years of conflict over the island, between Spain and the US, and after multiple military dictatorships; the Cuban masses culminated after over years of struggle to oust Batista's monstrosity of a government. After Fidel Castro was elected, land reform and industrialization were the main objectives, instead of breeding milk like a cow for foreign investors. Now they are the leading Latin American nation in literacy, life expectancy, and health care among other accomplishments. Cuba is withstanding a trade embargo that the Cuban government estimates, have cost them billions in losses. Really the only relevance in your reply is that some people in Cuba choose to illegaly emigrate to the US. This is because of the US policiy to allow Cubans to stay in the US if they make it; can you imagine what would happen if they let any other Latin American country's emigrates do that?! Don't single out the fact that some people choose to leave, then use that sole fact to convince that everything is absolutely horrible in Cuba, because you just sound like an idiot.

Im sure you want some sources, well here you go:Cuba: Issues & Answers (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html).


As for your other source: I gave a number of instances of countries that modernized or are modernizing without killing millions of their own people in the process. Also I question the neutrality of a Lenin speech."Without killing millions of their own people?" Come on. Don't you have anything original? Im sure you think that the examples you give are just pacifists then huh? Because im quite sure that Japanese imperialist armies murdered, tortured, and pillaged through much of the land the occupied of China, Korea, and the rest of Southeast Asia. You don't think the Rhee government didn't commit any crimes or atrocities during the years of separation and war? I dispute the nuetrality of "communists killed millions of their own people in the process".




If you are concerned with equality, civil rights, health care, etc. and desire a government approach, it would be wiser to turn towards one which has a track record of success, i.e., social democracy and Stockholm school economics.A better track record of success? Sure, maybe if your idea of success is prolonging the inherently chaotic system of capitalism, but masking it with reforms. Yeah sure, maybe social democracy had a track record of "success" until the effects of crises of overproduction, and the black hole of tax payer money that is imperialism drains the economy down to near collapse.


There is nothing new about the black market in the Soviet Union. There have always been shortages - and then illegal dealers to fill the gap for the right price. The Soviet economy has never worked efficiently enough to put black-marketeers out of business. But talking about the black market was taboo. When Konstantin Simis, an attorney and professor of law until he emigrated to the United States in 1977, was working in Moscow on an early draft of his book ``U.S.S.R.: The Corrupt Society,'' the KGB confiscated the manuscript.
Corrupt underground economy, shortages everywhere, police state stifling all criticism ... whenever someone says "Soviet Union", the word "paradise" echoes in my mind. And don't pretend this stuff didn't happen. There is probably not one old man or woman who lived behind the Iron Curtain who will tell you anything else was true.I'm sure there was a black market in the SU after revisionism took hold, theres no surprise there, the contradictions of revisionist policies that were introduced by Krushchev (and supported by Brezhnev) caused the Soviet economy to stagnate in the 70's. I don't know why your having so much fun stating the obvious.

But you cannot deny for a second that free-market liberalized crap that you like so much made the life for people in the old Socialist camp any better; in fact it was the complete opposite. I don't even need to argue this point, because your intelligent (well I hope you are) to know that Russia is now a corrupt oligarchy engaged in wars against nations who want determination, an economy ridden with astounding inflation, and debts to foreign investment, as well as an increasing non-Russian population who face inequality, and violent attacks by neo-fascist gangs. Moscow is now the worlds most expensive city to live in, and wealth gap between Moscow and the rest of Russia is growing enormous. The rest of the nations in the Eastern Bloc are experiencing the similar digressing effects of market liberalization. Some were much more brutal, like in Yugoslavia for example. Or in Hungary, a recent poll (http://www.politics.hu/20080521/poll-shows-majority-of-hungarians-feel-life-was-better-under-communism), shows that the majority of Hungarians preferred the Socialist bloc.


lern2reading
lern2mathThis is petty and childish and only makes you look ignorant.




And, "racist", my ass, haven't you noticed I am also Asian yet? I'd be surprised if you weren't white, as only whites ever feel they have to make perfectly innocuous comments all about race. There is nothing in the Lao or Korean genetic material that requires them to live under a shitty economic system. The Lao minority in Thailand and the contrast between North and South Korea surely validate this assertion.
So you want to deny that you made an offensive comment that could be interpenetrated as racist? What the makes it any different if you are from China?

"Only whites feel they have to make perfectly innocuous comments all about race", also seems like a pretty fucking racist comment if you ask me.

[NecroCommie]

And you're from Finland, so I take it you aren't mired in poverty yourself.
Dont. I live in a spartan two-room flat with barely enough money to pay food and bills. Mainly because my capitalist country ordered me into slave labour due to my "lack of patriotism" (I declined conscription)

I guess it might be worse, but the truth is all my miseries are due to capitalism, and all my freedoms gained during the pro-soviet era of 60's-70's.

There's some hard worked gains and economic freedom of capitalism for you.


And as to other "points" of yours, I dont even care to elaborate further. All your claims have been countered in this forum since time immemorial. If you just had bothered to read a minute further you would not need to write all that stuff.

[XieJinyuan]

Invasions, carpet bombing, organising coups, economic blockades of third world countries. That's no mere excuse. It's blaming them for something they actively and openly sought, and threw their full weight behind, the most powerful country on earth.

Alright ... but the US obviously did not invade and carpet bomb every single Marxist-Leninist country.

Prediction: there will still be capitalism long after the US becomes a second-rate power this century.



Would countries can be expected to prosper peacefully under a decade of carpet-bombing by the US?


Well Vietnam is prospering now, of course they have a free market and stuff these days. Which, I might add, was not forced on them by anyone.



Which? The scalping?
http://www.mnsd.net/mnhs/apush/unitXV/Varnado_Simpson.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/64344.stm <--- this one mentions other mutilation (the carving of the company's name on people's chests).
There's a documentary I watched years ago, with one of the soldiers in Vietnam talking about him scalping and baby-killing and whatnot. Those sources will have to do.


Atrocities? During a war? Yeah duh. Too bad that has nothing to do with the efficiency of market allocation.


So the conclusion is "nothing works"? What's the point of this thread then? Scarcity and overpopulation, bullshit it is. And what exactly are these "facts of life"? What are you even talking about here? Scarcity is a "fact of life" in industrialised, first world, capitalist-for-centuries countries but in third world, unindustrialised, war-torn vaguely "Marxist"-for-decades countries it's a fault of Marxism?

Scarcity exists everywhere, but Marxism-Leninism does a poorer job of managing it because it is not efficient at all.



You whinge about how not all Marxist states have been invaded and whatnot by the US, yet the best example you find is one that was bombed substantially- by the US?

I'm getting sick of your logical fallacies, so here's a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries#Marxist-Leninist

Of these countries, most have not been invaded directly or indirectly by any US forces: SPR Albania, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, PR Benin and PDR Yemen just to name a few.

So stop whining "omg the big bad US throttled socialist paradise in its crib everywhere", because it isn't true. These countries tried Marxism-Leninism, it didn't work for them, they didn't like it, they threw it out. Period.


An unindustrialised third world country cannot be expected to just "work" because the Marxists managed to kick out the colonialists a few mere decades ago.

Vietnam has already become fairly successful ... because they implemented a market economy.



And by what standard do you judge? The "Human Development Index" has Laos at #133, over Cambodia. Not over Vietnam, but over plenty of capitalist countries. Over a lot of the countries where our shite gets grown and made in sweatshops, or mined out of the ground.


I question the neutrality of the UN.



EDIT: What's all this "lern2reading" childishness?

4chan reference

lern2internets


You are confusing Marxism-Leninism as the only form of communism. There are other forms. Not everyone here is a Marxist-Leninist, Maoist or even a Leninist. Some Marxists have pointed out some flaws in Leninism. There are theories other than Marxism-Leninism (which turns out to be state capitalism in practice)..

Yes, but I was asking about Marxism-Leninism, and it looks like there are plenty of people willing to defend it here.

kthxbai


This is such irrelevant drivel that its sickening. The Cuban revolution introduced the first government on the island that could be called a democracy.

Are dissidents jailed in a real democracy? I was not informed.



This is because of the US policiy to allow Cubans to stay in the US if they make it; can you imagine what would happen if they let any other Latin American country's emigrates do that?! Don't single out the fact that some people choose to leave, then use that sole fact to convince that everything is absolutely horrible in Cuba, because you just sound like an idiot.

It's evidently bad enough that people risk their lives getting out of there

What about those prisoners of conscience? Do they not exist now? Why does Cuba lock up peaceful protesters?



"Without killing millions of their own people?" Come on. Don't you have anything original? Im sure you think that the examples you give are just pacifists then huh? Because im quite sure that Japanese imperialist armies murdered, tortured, and pillaged through much of the land the occupied of China, Korea, and the rest of Southeast Asia. You don't think the Rhee government didn't commit any crimes or atrocities during the years of separation and war? I dispute the nuetrality of "communists killed millions of their own people in the process".


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mao+death+toll
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stalin+death+toll



A better track record of success? Sure, maybe if your idea of success is prolonging the inherently chaotic system of capitalism, but masking it with reforms. ... I'm sure there was a black market in the SU after revisionism took hold, theres no surprise there, the contradictions of revisionist policies that were introduced by Krushchev (and supported by Brezhnev) caused the Soviet economy to stagnate in the 70's. I don't know why your having so much fun stating the obvious.

Capitalism is chaotic but also causes stagnation ... ?



Yeah sure, maybe social democracy had a track record of "success" until the effects of crises of overproduction, and the black hole of tax payer money that is imperialism drains the economy down to near collapse.


OH SHI! Denmark is on the verge of collapse!



But you cannot deny for a second that free-market liberalized crap that you like so much made the life for people in the old Socialist camp any better; in fact it was the complete opposite. I don't even need to argue this point, because your intelligent (well I hope you are) to know that Russia is now a corrupt oligarchy engaged in wars against nations who want determination

Russia has always been like that. Including under the Soviet Union.



Or in Hungary, a recent poll (http://www.politics.hu/20080521/poll-shows-majority-of-hungarians-feel-life-was-better-under-communism), shows that the majority of Hungarians preferred the Socialist bloc.



Sociologist Pál Tamás of the Academy of Sciences sociology institute told Népszabadság that the poll does not reflect political nostalgia. "In general this region was less happy in the 1990s than Western Europe. It has been shown that an East German who has a job is less happy than a jobless West German. The struggle and the basic feeling of 'I have been promised much and I received little' characterises this region," he said.

lern2reading




This is petty and childish and only makes you look ignorant.


When you lern2reading and lern2math, I will stop doing it.



So you want to deny that you made an offensive comment that could be interpenetrated as racist? What the makes it any different if you are from China?


Interpenetrated ... I have no idea what that means, but only an excessively sensitive person racked with white guilt would ever suggest that saying NK is unvisitable is "racist". Especially after I compared it to South Korea, which is quite visitable and, after all, full of the very same ethnic group, that is ... the Koreans.

Incidentally, I was in Koreatown in Flushing, Queens just last December. Pretty cool. I'd be surprised if any of you were ever even near a person of color, or even left your suburban white neighborhoods.


"Only whites feel they have to make perfectly innocuous comments all about race", also seems like a pretty fucking racist comment if you ask me.

It's true.

Due you hear these kinds of asinine comments coming out of black or yellow mouths? Me neither.


Dont. I live in a spartan two-room flat with barely enough money to pay food and bills. Mainly because my capitalist country ordered me into slave labour due to my "lack of patriotism" (I declined conscription)

And yet you have enough extra money and free time left over to argue with people on the Internet.

Slaves do not have Internet access.

This is why you wannabe Marxist-Leninists will never get anything done. All you do is whine about US this and imperialist that. Meanwhile people such as myself are out earning advanced degrees and tending to the maintenance of the system you so despise. And you won't be able to do anything about it but type up frustrated screeds at your capitalist-built keyboards.

I can see the angry responses already ... veiled threats about a worker's revolution and bourgeoise massacre, "just you wait and see" ... I'll believe that when you put down the bong and get off the couch.

[MikeSC]

4chan referenceAh, that explains a lot.


Well Vietnam is prospering now, of course they have a free market and stuff these days. Which, I might add, was not forced on them by anyone.Not for want of trying. Do you know how South Vietnam was turned into a Pro-Western power from which to launch the "Vietam War" we all know and love? Invasion and installation of a puppet government (not democratically, as the USA conceded the Communists would have won any election by a landslide- so they just didn't bother with whole democracy business.) Like I've said before- like you keep ignoring- socialism in these countries cannot have been expected to work in such a short time, under such conditions. You have to remember that in this time Vietnam has gone from an agricultural freshly post-colonial third-world country treated with hostility by first world countries to an industrialised one supported by first world countries. This is an affirmation of one of Marxist-Leninisms tenets- that capitalism has to be suitably advanced, to an industrialised society, before the transition to communism.


Atrocities? During a war? Yeah duh. Too bad that has nothing to do with the efficiency of market allocation.You don't think economies get put under any strain when, for example, the country is getting bombed, it's infrastructure is getting directly targeted, it's farmland ruined, it's people killed and forcefully relocated? And you asked specifically about the scalping, because you thought it was a bullshit exaggeration, right?


Of these countries, most have not been invaded directly or indirectly by any US forces: SPR Albania, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, PR Benin and PDR Yemen just to name a few.

So stop whining "omg the big bad US throttled socialist paradise in its crib everywhere", because it isn't true. These countries tried Marxism-Leninism, it didn't work for them, they didn't like it, they threw it out. Period.To say that Marxist-Leninism doesn't work because a few of the undeveloped third-world countries that tried it for a very short time, under conditions specifically pinpoited as unfit for socialist revolution, didn't become utopias is the fallacy.


Vietnam has already become fairly successful ... because they implemented a market economy.Like I said, industrialisation, coupled with the support of capitalist countries already powerful. This example is a support of Marxism/Marxist-Leninism over Maoism if anything.


I question the neutrality of the UN.Ah, I see. Confirmed troll here guys. You think the UN is pro-Communist / Anti-Capitalist? Lern2usebrain.

EDIT: Love the insults at the end by the way. We have a 4chan student right-winger who trolls internet forums against us, what on earth can we do?

[GracchusBabeuf]

kthxbaiThe same to you.:bored:

[XieJinyuan]

Ah, that explains a lot.

When I am working for a huge international bank or trade company, I will still like 4chan memes and there's nothing you can do about it.



This is an affirmation of one of Marxist-Leninisms tenets- that capitalism has to be suitably advanced, to an industrialised society, before the transition to communism.


So you're like those people who were trying to sell me 'end of the world' prophecy newspapers in New York back in 2000: the socialist revolution is imminent! ... [years pass] The socialist revolution is imminent! ... [more years pass] ... The socialist revolution ...

Actually, you're more like one of those guys on Stormfront who keeps saying that war against the ZOG is coming soon, or at least as soon as he gets the truck on cinder blocks in his yard fixed up.

In fact, the rhetoric is almost exactly the same. Instead of blaming a tiny shadowy elite of world Jewry for plundering the whole world, you blame a tiny shadowy elite of world capitalists of the same thing. This kind of mindset, in general, is adopted by inadequate people who need to believe that something other than their own mediocrity is holding them down.



To say that Marxist-Leninism doesn't work because a few of the undeveloped third-world countries that tried it for a very short time, under conditions specifically pinpoited as unfit for socialist revolution, didn't become utopias is the fallacy.


You'll have to elaborate before I can take this seriously.

What defines "very short time"?

You have nothing but excuses.



Like I said, industrialisation, coupled with the support of capitalist countries already powerful. This example is a support of Marxism/Marxist-Leninism over Maoism if anything.


Looks more like backpedaling.



Ah, I see. Confirmed troll here guys. You think the UN is pro-Communist / Anti-Capitalist?


It's clearly left-wing, as indicated by its powerlessness in the real world.


EDIT: Love the insults at the end by the way. We have a 4chan student right-winger who trolls internet forums against us, what on earth can we do?

You can continue to use the word 'it's' when you should be using 'its' and complaining about imperialists and capitalist robber-barons over whom you have no power whatever.

I am training to become one of them myself. :laugh:

omg gb2/b/

[mykittyhasaboner]

Are dissidents jailed in a real democracy? I was not informed.

It's evidently bad enough that people risk their lives getting out of there

What about those prisoners of conscience? Do they not exist now? Why does Cuba lock up peaceful protesters?

There aren't many dissidents in Cuba, and if they are locked up its for a reason. I think you underestimate the amount of threat Cuba is under at any given time.

Cuba is a "real" democracy (I would love your definition of a "real" democracy) and features more accountability and direct democracy than your precious liberalized capitalist dicatorship of the bourgeoisie.

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/cuba/democracy_in_cuba.htm
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mao+death+toll
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stalin+death+toll
That's simply pathetic. If you cant come up with anything to say then why bother?



Capitalism is chaotic but also causes stagnation ... ?wtf? Why are you editing what I posted, to make it seem like it was the same sentence? First, stagnation and chaos don't mutally exclude eachother. I dont really get what your trying to do/say with this reply, so I'll just ignore it, and if you decide to come up with an arugment then I'll respond.



OH SHI! Denmark is on the verge of collapse!Another non-arguement.


Russia has always been like that. Including under the Soviet Union. Why did you edit out the rest of my post? Is it because you know that immigrants were considered equal in the SU? And that the wealth gap between Moscow and the rest of Russia was minute at best? When was the SU ever at war with self-proclaimed nation inside of Russia or the SU seeking determination?


Sociologist Pál Tamás of the Academy of Sciences sociology institute told Népszabadság that the poll does not reflect political nostalgia. "In general this region was less happy in the 1990s than Western Europe. It has been shown that an East German who has a job is less happy than a jobless West German. The struggle and the basic feeling of 'I have been promised much and I received little' characterises this region," he said.Just because someone says that it doesn't reflect political nostalgia, doesn't change the fact that the majority of those polled thought life was better in the Socialist camp. A lot of Germans (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.nostalgia/) who were polled think East Germany was better than "reunified" Garmany as well.


Interpenetrated ... I have no idea what that meansSpell-check typo if that makes sense. What I meant to type was 'interpret'.


but only an excessively sensitive person racked with white guilt would ever suggest that saying NK is unvisitable is "racist". Especially after I compared it to South Korea, which is quite visitable and, after all, full of the very same ethnic group, that is ... the Koreans.

Incidentally, I was in Koreatown in Flushing, Queens just last December. Pretty cool. I'd be surprised if any of you were ever even near a person of color, or even left your suburban white neighborhoods.Again with your racial bullshit. White guilt? Your insane, and I'm not interested in your ignorant 'holier than thou' non-arguments.


It's true.

Due you hear these kinds of asinine comments coming out of black or yellow mouths? Me neither.
Go ahead, keep on making yourself look like an ignorant racist. I'm finding it rather funny.




I can see the angry responses already ... veiled threats about a worker's revolution and bourgeoise massacre, "just you wait and see" ... I'll believe that when you put down the bong and get off the couch.So you resort to personal attacks when you cant argue your position anymore? Classic.

[XieJinyuan]

There aren't many dissidents in Cuba, and if they are locked up its for a reason.

Good God you are brainwashed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

What were they locked up for? Protesting non-violently?



Cuba is a "real" democracy (I would love your definition of a "real" democracy) and features more accountability and direct democracy than your precious liberalized capitalist dicatorship of the bourgeoisie.

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/cuba/democracy_in_cuba.htm
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)


You're giving me personal websites. Angelfire? Is that more or less reputable than Geocities?

What is this shit you're giving me?

Even the left-wing organization Reporters without Borders gives Cuba a pitiful 169 out of 173 on its press freedom index

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031

...just ahead of Burma, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea. Sounds like a free country to me.



That's simply pathetic. If you cant come up with anything to say then why bother?


"The regimes of Stalin and Mao killed millions of people."



wtf? Why are you editing what I posted, to make it seem like it was the same sentence? First, stagnation and chaos don't mutally exclude eachother.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=stagnation

S: (n) stagnation, stagnancy, doldrums (a state of inactivity (in business or art etc)) "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=chaos

S: (n) chaos, pandemonium, bedlam, topsy-turvydom, topsy-turvyness (a state of extreme confusion and disorder)Stagnation is undesirable absence of change, chaos is undesirable excess of change

The words are practically antonyms

lern2reading



Another non-arguement.


I don't know one social democratic country that is, quote, "on the verge of collapse".

Which one do you have in mind? Sweden? Norway?

lern2reading



Why did you edit out the rest of my post? Is it because you know that immigrants were considered equal in the SU? And that the wealth gap between Moscow and the rest of Russia was minute at best? When was the SU ever at war with self-proclaimed nation inside of Russia or the SU seeking determination?


Citation plz, I'm not going to take your word for it

And from reliable sources, not Angelfire pages



Just because someone says that it doesn't reflect political nostalgia, doesn't change the fact that the majority of those polled thought life was better in the Socialist camp. A lot of Germans (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.nostalgia/) who were polled think East Germany was better than "reunified" Garmany as well.


Some do, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Marxism-Leninism to take over Germany.

In fact Angela Merkel is relatively right-wing for Western Europe.



Again with your racial bullshit. White guilt? Your insane, and I'm not interested in your ignorant 'holier than thou' non-arguments.


You feel guilty because you're a white guy from a middle-class background who rarely sees people of other races or ethnic backgrounds.



Go ahead, keep on making yourself look like an ignorant racist. I'm finding it rather funny.


"Ignorant" is a mighty charge to stick to me, from someone who lacks even the barest rudiments of literacy and numeracy.

You can scream "racist" until you're blue in the face; it won't make it true, or make me feel guilty.



So you resort to personal attacks when you cant argue your position anymore? Classic.

My argument is that I'm better educated than you, and will have more say in policy, relatively speaking, and you won't be able to do anything. You will remain a, quote, "wage slave", and I will have an office chair with lumbar support.

[Sam_b]

It does, but in things that are illegal. The Soviet black market dealt in ordinary shit like cigarettes, meat and toiletries.

Thats funny. Maybe I just imagined buying several packets of under-the-counter imported and imitation cigarettes a few weeks ago.

[XieJinyuan]

Have you bought ordinary meat on the black market?

Have you bought the privilege to use a sterilized needle on the black market?

If not, then you're not in bad shape

Also, stop ruining your lungs; the working classes must be in good health for the revolution

[JimmyJazz]

Explain

stick around

[PigmerikanMao]

I think that whether or not Marxism has been successfully applied on a large scale really depends on your definition of the true Marxist ideology. A member of the Khmer Rouge would obviously claim that communism was attained in Democratic Kampuchea whereas a Trotskyite would give you that “real communism has never really happened” bullshit, and while they may have a credible argument to that point, others have sources to the contrary. My point being is that “Marxism” is a relative term, and the answer you get from, say, an anarchist, will be radically different than one you get from say, a Maoist. While on the subject though, although I am relatively uncertain on Marxism in application for a larger society, I can point out a few societies in which collective progress was put before the profit of the individual- what Marx called “primitive communism.” American Indian tribes centered their society very much so on the collective good as opposed to one at the mercy of a market or monarch. The same can be said of some tribes in the Mongolian Plateau. Whether these examples could constitute as being “large scale” is open to anyone’s interpretation, and whether they were Marxist or just plain socialist is also relative. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.

[XieJinyuan]

stick around

Will my ability to understand elaborate excuses for Marxism-Leninism wax?

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not going to address all of the issues which have been discussed in this thread because most of them have already been answered in previous discussions, but the main problem with XieJinyuan's argument is that whilst he/she rightly points out that terrible abuses have been carried out in the name of socialism, in countries that have described themselves as being socialist, she/he has also fails to acknowledge that the countries in east Asia which have been able to develop their economies and provide a standard of living similar to that which can be obtained in western countries such as the UK were only able to do through substantial government intervention, including government-funded infrastructural programs, tariffs to encourage the growth of domestic industries, and even limited forms of economic planning, as in the case of South Korea. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what socialists advocate knows that socialism is not the same as government intervention, and all decent socialists would argue that these countries were class societies in which the working class was oppressed and exploited by the bourgeoisie, but the fact that government intervention was such an important factor in allowing development to take place contradicts the ideas and policies that have been promoted by international capitalist institutions such as the IMF for the past two decades, since the Washington Consensus following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and this is something that can also be seen from the persistent failure of free trade and other capitalist-orientated policies to deliver sustainable and equitable development. These issues and the history of development in the post-war era are explored in greater depth in this essay: "Kicking Away the Ladder" by Ha-Joon Chang (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm). On the subject of the so-called "socialist" countries, there are many people on the radical left, including myself and the SWP, who argue that these countries were not, despite the absence of private private property as a recognized legal concept, socialist in any meaningful way, and were in fact capitalist countries (state-capitalist, to be precise) on the grounds that the working classes of these countries did not carry out radical social and political changes, and were denied control of the means of production, thereby replicating the same power structures and material inequalities as one would expect to find in any capitalist country based on market forces and government-protected private property. Marx was always very clear on the fact that the emancipation of the working class must be an act of self-emancipation, which means that liberation from the material deprivation and alienation of capitalism can only come about through the efforts and struggles of the working class itself, possibly as part of a united front involving other class forces, and not through a party or bureaucratic elite imposing its own agenda on the rest of society.

[XieJinyuan]

The "working classes" are too dumb/apathetic for self-emancipation.


she/he has also fails to acknowledge that the countries in east Asia which have been able to develop their economies and provide a standard of living similar to that which can be obtained in western countries such as the UK were only able to do through substantial government intervention, including government-funded infrastructural programs, tarrifs to encourage the growth of domestic industries, and even limited forms of economic planning, as in the case of South Korea.

I'm a mainstream economist, not an Austrian or even Chicago school economist, and acknowledge that already. So you are misrepresenting my views ... I have no idea where you got the idea that I believe government intervention is bad in all cases.

In fact, my plan is to go back home and help make sure China becomes the new 400 kg gorilla in the room.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm a mainstream economist, not an Austrian or even Chicago school economist, and acknowledge that already. So you are misrepresenting my views ... I have no idea where you got the idea that I believe government intervention is bad in all cases.If you acknowledge that government-directed economic development is a more progressive and effective alternative than neo-liberalism in most or even some cases, that immediately places you in opposition to the prevailing economic orthodoxy, and so the issue we should be discussing is whether the strategy adopted by South Korea and the other Asian Tigers is capable of raising all countries out of poverty and delivering improvements in living standards for working populations throughout the entire world, or whether, as the radical left would argue, more fundamental change is required, including the abolition of capitalism, in order to eliminate the ills generated by an unfettered market system. As a Marxist, I would argue that in order to understand that question, we first need to consider what Marx had to say about capitalism, because however much we may disagree with his vision of communism, or the accuracy of his economic analysis, even establishment figures recognize that Marx was able to predict with impressive accuracy how capitalism would develop, despite the fact that capitalism was limited to only a few countries, including Britain, Belgium, and the eastern seaboard of the United States, when Marx was writing in the 19th Century. Despite his reputation as a political activist and principled anti-capitalist, Marx recognized that capitalism was an incredibly progressive system, in that the removal of the fetters that had been imposed by the feudal state and the emergence of an economic system based on the drive to accumulate capital allowed for the rapid development of the productive forces, which Marx understood as our ability to control nature and provide for our material needs, such that, for the first time in history, capitalism has generated the possibility of providing for the basic needs of each and every human alive today, whereas under previous modes of production material scarcity was a fact of life for most of the working population, and something that could not be altered because the technology and resources that would have been required to do so did not exist. This view of capitalism is reflected in 'The Communist Manifesto', which has often been described as one of the most articulate and convincing defences of capitalism ever written:

"The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades"

This may appear to suggest that there is no problem with capitalism because this incredible productive capacity exists. However, capitalism is ultimately a system under which the production and distribution of goods is determined not by how much people need in order to lead fulfilling lives, or even how much people deserve, but by what will best serve the interests of the small minority who own and control the means of production - otherwise known as the bourgeoisie, or the ruling class. In practical terms, this means that meeting human needs is always subordinate to the drive to accumulate as much profit as possible, as each individual member of the ruling class needs to continuously expand and improve their enterprise in order to remain competitive with other firms in the same industry, because the alternative is to go bankrupt, which would mean being forced to join the ranks of the proletariat, the members of which have no other way to survive except by selling their labour power as a commodity, in exchange for which they are given a wage to ensure that the worker can return to work at the beginning of each working day, and to allow the capitalist to realize the profit contained within each individual commodity. The outcome of this is that goods are distributed through a price mechanism, whereby access to any good is conditional on ability to pay, such that, even in societies of incredible net abundance, including countries which we would normally consider "developed" or "wealthy" such as the UK, basic needs are not addressed, because a significant section of the working population lacks sufficient income to purchase the commodities they need. This manifests itself most clearly on a global scale, in the form of one of the most basic need imaginable - a minimum standard of nutrition. The world is currently richer and more productive than it has ever been in history, yet, according to the United Nations, 963 million people live in hunger and fear of starvation, and about 25,000 people, mostly children, actually die of hunger, or causes related to hunger, every day. This is not because we lack sufficient food to feed the world's population - in fact, we have enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day, and even in countries that are experiencing famine or food insecurity, there is normally enough food available to ensure that everyone is fed. The fundamental problem is bound up with capitalism - food is produced to make a profit, and distributed through the market in the form of a commodity. In other words, people go hungry because they are poor and can't afford to buy the food available. In a socialist society, the economy would be organized on a planned and democratic basis instead of leaving everything up to the dynamics of capital accumulation, and so food - as well as every other product - would be distributed according to need, and nobody would be allowed to starve just because they don't have enough money. This brings us back to the question I mentioned at the beginning of this post - the choice between revolutionary change, and fighting for limited reforms within the framework of the capitalist system and the political processes of the bourgeois state. State support in the form of welfare provision and legal protection for workers signifies an important gain for the working class, and is certainly something that should be defended, but there are two broad reasons as to what these concessions cannot be seen as the basis for the permanent abolition of material hardship in a global scale. Firstly, social-democracy is a phenomenon that is generally limited to countries that have already developed their economies and now function as the bases for multinational companies, because the governments of developing countries face pressures to create an investment environment that will encourage foreign companies to set up production there, in order to provide jobs and income for the local population, in the absence of companies based in the global south, and this inevitably means cutting back on labour protection, environmental safeguards, because, as firms operating in a capitalist world economy, multinationals are concerned first and foremost with profit, and their ability to accumulate profit would be compromised by invasive regulations. Secondly, and more importantly, an essential feature of capitalism is that it is a system that is prone to crisis - in other words, it displays a tendency to alternate between periods of economic boom, and downturns, in which employment falls, and employers take advantage of the scarce job market to reduce wages and force their employees to work longer and more intense hours, as a means to raise the rate of profit, and eventually restore prosperity. It is during these periods of recession that the concessions workers have won in the past through class struggle tend to come under attack, and the inability of capitalism to meet human needs shows itself most clearly. The implication of this from an activist point of view is that, whilst social-democracy may ameliorate some of the worst effects of capitalism in the short term, for a section of the global working class, in the long run fundamental structural change is required to achieve complete liberation.


The "working classes" are too dumb/apathetic for self-emancipation.

Workers throughout the world have shown that they are perfectly capable of recognizing and fighting for their own class interests without bureaucratic direction from above. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a clear example of this - workers formed their own political organizations that linked political struggle with the economic structure of a future socialist state by taking control of the means of production and establishing democratic workers control.

[XieJinyuan]

If you acknowledge that government-directed economic development is a more progressive and effective alternative than neo-liberalism in most or even some cases, that immediately places you in opposition to the prevailing economic orthodoxy

Mainstream economics acknowledges the existence of market failure; what are you talking about.


This manifests itself most clearly on a global scale, in the form of one of the most basic need imaginable - a minimum standard of nutrition. The world is currently richer and more productive than it has ever been in history, yet, according to the United Nations, 963 million people live in hunger and fear of starvation, and about 25,000 people, mostly children, actually die of hunger, or causes related to hunger, every day.

Yeah well, life sucks, there's nothing (realistic) we can do about it. Besides a lot of people are pests and should be gotten rid of anyway, especially in light of overpopulation.

(See signature.)


Workers throughout the world have shown that they are perfectly capable of recognizing and fighting for their own class interests without bureaucratic direction from above. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a clear example of this - workers formed their own political organizations that linked political struggle with the economic structure of a future socialist state by taking control of the means of production and establishing democratic workers control.

And it promptly turned to shit.

[BobKKKindle$]

eah well, life sucks, there's nothing (realistic) we can do about it. Besides a lot of people are pests and should be gotten rid of anyway, especially in light of overpopulation.

When you argue in favour of extermination, what's the point of having a discussion? Any sensible political discourse is based on the assumption that saving lives and making people happy are things that we should pursue and uphold as desirable objectives, and disagreements arise over the best way to achieve these objectives - not whether they are intrinsically desirable.

[XieJinyuan]

Don't get me wrong: as much as I would like to administer phenol injections to useless people personally, nature will ultimately prove more efficient.

[#FF0000]

Yeah well, life sucks, there's nothing (realistic) we can do about it. Besides a lot of people are pests and should be gotten rid of anyway, especially in light of overpopulation.

I'm curious as to who you are to make that claim.

In any case, people have most certainly died under socialist systems. However, if you're going to blame Marxism (or marxism-leninism) as a whole for people who died because of crop failure, mismanagement, and even for political reasons, then it's only fair to do the same for capitalism, right?

Add up how many people died in every war involving a world power since... oh, I don't know, how about 1900, just to have a nice even number? Add up all the people who died as a result of colonialism... Add up all the people who starved or died of preventable illness during the world depression in the 30's... Add up all the people who died under Hitler and during both World Wars (products of capitalism, after all). Add up all the dead from every major conflict in the world from the 50's until now, then... Hmmm aaand add up all the folks who have died from starvation and preventable illness since the end of WW2 as well, before we forget. Oh, and that Pinochet fellow as well. I'm sure we're forgetting some but you get the point, I hope...

It's easy to pin a body count on communism. It's just easier to link a government or single authority figure with problems within their borders. With capitalism, though, you have multinational businesses operating through governments and through other businesses and all sorts of tangled webs to wade through.

So. Yeah.

[#FF0000]

Don't get me wrong: as much as I would like to administer phenol injections to useless people personally, nature will ultimately prove more efficient.

People who talk like that usually put people with forms of autism on that list of "useless people". Something you should probably think about before saying that sort of thing.

[danyboy27]

bobkindle vs XieJinyuan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=21235)

this is an epic fight, i love it.

[XieJinyuan]

Add up how many people died in every war involving a world power since... oh, I don't know, how about 1900, just to have a nice even number? Add up all the people who died as a result of colonialism... Add up all the people who starved or died of preventable illness during the world depression in the 30's...

If anything this is manslaughter rather than outright murder.

I'm ambivalent in either case.


People who talk like that usually put people with forms of autism on that list of "useless people". Something you should probably think about before saying that sort of thing.

...but, as a rule, they don't include university economics students making well over a 3.0 grade point average.

I'm not a useless retard.

[#FF0000]

If anything this is manslaughter rather than outright murder.

I'm ambivalent in either case.

Ah so it's wrong if Communists kill people, but if people die as a result of capitalist policies, it's just manslaughter and it's a-okay?



...but, as a rule, they don't include university economics students making well over a 3.0 grade point average.

I'm not a useless retard.

In Germany circa 1930, you wouldn't have made it to grade school.

[XieJinyuan]

Ah so it's wrong if Communists kill people, but if people die as a result of capitalist policies, it's just manslaughter and it's a-okay?

Manslaughter is a lesser offense.


In Germany circa 1930, you wouldn't have made it to grade school.

Why? I have always been a very good student.

Also a certain ...... historical figure may well have had the same condition as I have now.

[#FF0000]

Manslaughter is a lesser offense.

Yeah but most of the deaths in socialist countries aren't as a result of executions. They've usually been a result of bad policy or poor execution of policy, or even just because of crop failure. Take the genocide in Darfur, the Holocaust, Pinochet's executions, maybe the Armenian genocide, and toss in every execution ever held in a capitalist country (if you want), and then you already have many more cases of murder in capitalist states than in socialist ones.



Why? I have always been a very good student.

Because eugenicists that are okay with exterminating "unfit" specimens would most likely see autism as a deficit. You'd have been aborted before anyone could know how good a student you are.

[XieJinyuan]

Yeah but most of the deaths in socialist countries aren't as a result of executions. They've usually been a result of bad policy or poor execution of policy, or even just because of crop failure. Take the genocide in Darfur, the Holocaust, Pinochet's executions, maybe the Armenian genocide, and toss in every execution ever held in a capitalist country (if you want), and then you already have many more cases of murder in capitalist states than in socialist ones.

When you can produce a study, and not just hand-wave, I will accept this claim


Because eugenicists that are okay with exterminating "unfit" specimens would most likely see autism as a deficit. You'd have been aborted before anyone could know how good a student you are.

Mental retardation is not autism and vice versa

No eugenics program has every targeted HFA; if anything eugenicists might select for HFA because people with it tend to perform very well academically and also tend to exhibit little, if any empathy. I believe we can be easily conditioned into fanatical, elitist attitudes, given the right approach. We might make superior state planners.

Especially with the importance of technology today, I wonder how many policy decisions are being bought by these kinds of people now.

[#FF0000]

When you can produce a study, and not just hand-wave, I will accept this claim

Alright. Give me a few days. I suggest you give me some sort of contact info though. I have a feeling you're going to be banned soon.



Mental retardation is not autism and vice versa

Oh I know this


No eugenics program has every targeted HFA; if anything eugenicists might select for HFA because people with it tend to perform very well academically and also tend to exhibit little, if any empathy. I believe we can be easily conditioned into fanatical, elitist attitudes, given the right approach. We might make superior state planners.

Might. Maybe. Speculation. Useless.

[JimmyJazz]

Will my ability to understand elaborate excuses for Marxism-Leninism wax?

Are you really too stupid to remember the topic of a thread of conversation with just two back and forth exchanges? Apparently.

[XieJinyuan]

Might. Maybe. Speculation. Useless.

"Because eugenicists that are okay with exterminating "unfit" specimens would most likely see autism as a deficit."

Ahem. Try to remember what you posted today.

As it is, the world's richest man is on the spectrum and it's likely that Hitler was, too (which makes your claim about eugenicists wanting to target HFA kind of absurd), so there's more substance to my claim than yours.

Also, preparing a rigorous study on how many capitalism has killed vs. how many Marxism-Leninism has killed will take more than several days.


Are you really too stupid to remember the topic of a thread of conversation with just two back and forth exchanges? Apparently.

I don't see what your comment has to do with mine.

[#FF0000]

Also, preparing a rigorous study on how many capitalism has killed vs. how many Marxism-Leninism has killed will take more than several days.

I can get a few different figures using existing information. The only thing that'll be difficult to ascertain is how many executions per year. What I think I'll do is start real narrow, with executions in the US from 1917 on, and add them together with the body counts of some genocides, and then add in the numbers of executions in other capitalist countries if the body count isn't already greater than that of Cuba, the USSR, and China.

I don't even think I'll need to look at executions in any other country aside from the U.S.

[XieJinyuan]

That's not a very rigorous study; you'd have to consult primary sources, use advanced statistical procedures, etc. bla bla bla which would require you to travel to many countries.

[#FF0000]

That's not a very rigorous study; you'd have to consult primary sources, use advanced statistical procedures, etc. bla bla bla which would require you to travel to many countries.

I think looking at some encyclopedias will suffice for an internet fight.

[XieJinyuan]

Whatever it is, I'm just going to criticize the methodology.

[PRC-UTE]

Whatever it is, I'm just going to criticize the methodology.

no matter what evidence we produce, you will reject it in other words.

[XieJinyuan]

He's going to use sloppy methodology; how can I accept it?

[MikeSC]

So you're like those people who were trying to sell me 'end of the world' prophecy newspapers in New York back in 2000: the socialist revolution is imminent! ... [years pass] The socialist revolution is imminent! ... [more years pass] ... The socialist revolution ...

Actually, you're more like one of those guys on Stormfront who keeps saying that war against the ZOG is coming soon, or at least as soon as he gets the truck on cinder blocks in his yard fixed up.

In fact, the rhetoric is almost exactly the same. Instead of blaming a tiny shadowy elite of world Jewry for plundering the whole world, you blame a tiny shadowy elite of world capitalists of the same thing. This kind of mindset, in general, is adopted by inadequate people who need to believe that something other than their own mediocrity is holding them down.In other words: you're arguing against something, when you don't even have a wikipedia-page's worth of knowledge about what it is.


You'll have to elaborate before I can take this seriously.

What defines "very short time"?

You have nothing but excuses.In this instance- less than a decade between the end of the war and the introduction of capitalism. Less than a decade, compared to the centuries of capitalism. A very short time.


Looks more like backpedaling.It's quite clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You come here, asking whether Marxist-Leninism has ever worked. We give you the reasons why these countries haven't "worked"- reasons that have been the central ideas behind Marxist-Leninism since before these countries were anything but colonies. It is basic Marxist-Leninism that capitalism has to be suitably advanced before the transition to communism, just like feudalism had to be suitably advanced before the right conditions for capitalism.


It's clearly left-wing, as indicated by its powerlessness in the real world.That's some serious idiocy if you think the United Nations is biased towards communism. You must also be completely clueless about how the HDI is calculated. This is a fundamentally idiotic position.


You can continue to use the word 'it's' when you should be using 'its' and complaining about imperialists and capitalist robber-barons over whom you have no power whatever.

I am training to become one of them myself. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

omg gb2/b/You're making yourself look like a complete tool, here. You obviously don't know what it is you're talking about- and honestly, you just don't seem like much of a threat.

EDIT: I don't think it's worth trying to argue against this troll with sources. He seems to think the UN is biased towards communism because it flat out contradicts what he's stated (without any sources at all to support it, might I add.) He's just a troll.

[F9]

Moved back to OI

[XieJinyuan]

sup Fuserg9, nice attempt at IP banning me, lol, too bad it didn't work because I can use mibbit in concert with an ordinary HTTP proxy


In this instance- less than a decade between the end of the war and the introduction of capitalism. Less than a decade, compared to the centuries of capitalism. A very short time.

All of the countries I mentioned had communism for more then ten years. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, hello? Even PR Benin and PDR Yemen lasted well longer than 10 years.

It is you who doesn't know what he's talking about

Your verification skills are sub-par and I suggest that you improve them or, in other words, lern2fact checking.



That's some serious idiocy if you think the United Nations is biased towards communism.


I don't. It does have a general left-wing bias however.


You're making yourself look like a complete tool, here. You obviously don't know what it is you're talking about- and honestly, you just don't seem like much of a threat.

The full extent of my nastiness will be realized eventually ... when I'm in my thirties, say, and really building a career.

One of my goals, btw, is to piss all over efforts like the UNTCAD. It is ridiculous for one person to try to do that, of course, but every drop is responsible for the flood and there are plenty of people like me as it is. So I don't feel like I will be hampered in my efforts.

They always tell us to aim high, you know

[MikeSC]

All of the countries I mentioned had communism for more then ten years. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, hello?

It is you who doesn't know what he's talking about

Your verification skills are sub-par and I suggest that you improve them or, in other words, lern2fact checking.This was a discussion about Vietnam, specifically- about you saying how it had long enough between the war and the institution of capitalism, when it had less than a decade. Czechoslovakia had decades, which is still a completely insignificant amount of time. Capitalism has had centuries, and is widespread, yet we still have periodic crises, and it is always fundamentally based in exploitation. It fundamentally does not "work".


I don't. It does have a general left-wing bias however.
Let's get this straight: You think that the United Nations manipulate the statistics for third-world countries that identify as communist to make them seem better than they are, because you have the completely unsupported opinion that Cambodia is more humane than Laos- and if your unsupported opinion differs from the statistics and evidence gathered by a global organisation made up of the most powerful capitalist countries in the world it must be because the organisation is biased against your unsupported opinion that we're meant to take as gospel because you're a student who, you assure us, is going to be powerful at some indeterminate time in the future?


The full extent of my nastiness will be realized eventually ... when I'm in my thirties, say, and really building a career.I honestly do not give a shit about your personal life. Repeatedly forcing it onto us, strangers on an internet forum, smacks of neediness.

[XieJinyuan]

This was a discussion about Vietnam, specifically- about you saying how it had long enough between the war and the institution of capitalism, when it had less than a decade.

Yeah collapsed that fast huh ... actually as far as I know, liberalization took place 1986, unified government took over in 1975~1976, so maybe they had a little more than a decade. But anyway, that's besides the point ... I'm not going to quibble over that point. I would instead like to turn my attention to something more substantial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam#History

Ho!

Ho!

Let's check facts here!
By the late 1990s, the success of the business and agricultural reforms ushered in under Doi Moi was evident. More than 30,000 private businesses had been created, and the economy was growing at an annual rate of more than 7 percent, and poverty was nearly halved.[3]D'oh!


Czechoslovakia had decades, which is still a completely insignificant amount of time. Capitalism has had centuries, and is widespread, yet we still have periodic crises, and it is always fundamentally based in exploitation.

Crises? Exploitation? These are constants throughout history. Get used to them.

Also you backpedaled. Now admit to everyone that your "less than ten years" claim about the four Communist countries I named was wrong.



Let's get this straight: You think that the United Nations manipulate the statistics for third-world countries that identify as communist to make them seem better than they are

No.

Where did I say that?



I honestly do not give a shit about your personal life. Repeatedly forcing it onto us, strangers on an internet forum, smacks of neediness.

I'm drinking tea right now.

[MikeSC]

Yeah collapsed that fast huh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam#History

Ho!

Ho!

Let's check facts here!
By the late 1990s, the success of the business and agricultural reforms ushered in under Doi Moi was evident. More than 30,000 private businesses had been created, and the economy was growing at an annual rate of more than 7 percent, and poverty was nearly halved.[3]D'oh!

That's nothing to do with anything. I said it had less than a decade between the war and the institution capitalism. The war ended in 1975, market reforms began to be institued in 1984- 1986.




Crises? Exploitation? These are constants throughout history. Get used to them.

If crises and exploitation are inevitable in a system, that system therefore cannot be considered to be a "working" system. The fact is that these crises are avoidable, this exploitation is avoidable. Capitalism overcame the crises and exploitation unique to feudalism, feudalism overcame a lot of the crises and exploitation of pre-feudal slavery. To say that these crises and exploitation are inevitable is to have no grasp of what you're talking about.


Also you backpedaled. Now admit to everyone that your "less than ten years" claim about the four Communist countries I named was wrong.

Not at all- you went from talking specifically about Vietnam, to talking about other countries after I said it. It's true about Vietnam- and for the others, a few decades is an insignificant amount of time.


No.

Where did I say that?

You made the unsupported claim that Cambodia was somehow better than Laos. I pointed out that the UN ranks Laos higher than Cambodia. You then said that the UN was biased.

[XieJinyuan]

If crises and exploitation are inevitable in a system, that system therefore cannot be considered to be a "working" system. The fact is that these crises are avoidable, this exploitation is avoidable. Capitalism overcame the crises and exploitation unique to feudalism, feudalism overcame a lot of the crises and exploitation of pre-feudal slavery. To say that these crises and exploitation are inevitable is to have no grasp of what you're talking about.

You have a comically Eurocentric, Hegelian view of the world. As if the classical era -> feudalism -> capitalism -> unsuccessful experiment with communism -> capitalism sequence were representative of the whole world.

The trend of civilization is not always 'up'; it goes up, it goes down, and eventually it turns to shit. That is my uniquely cynical take on the Indic/East Asian view of the world.


Not at all- you went from talking specifically about Vietnam, to talking about other countries after I said it. It's true about Vietnam- and for the others, a few decades is an insignificant amount of time.

They hated communism so much after they tried it, they couldn't wait to get rid of it.


You made the unsupported claim that Cambodia was somehow better than Laos. I pointed out that the UN ranks Laos higher than Cambodia. You then said that the UN was biased.

It is, but, at any rate, beating out Cambodia for development isn't hard.

Do you believe those rankings yourself? Look at the countries at the top.

[MikeSC]

You have a comically Eurocentric, Hegelian view of the world.

No, the trend of civilization is not always 'up'; it goes up, it goes down, and eventually it turns to shit. That is my uniquely cynical take on the Indic/East Asian view of the world.

Quote:

Nothing unique about it. Nothing to suggest that anything you're trying to say is right, either. Society has faced different crises, some it has overcame, some it can overcome but hasn't yet. It's ignorant in the extreme to think that because man-created exploitation happens, it's inevitable for ever. Or that because man-created crises happen, that they're inevitable for ever. A backward attitude like that would have us still voyaging off in our galleons to kidnap people for slavery.


They hated communism so much after they tried it, they couldn't wait to get rid of it.

And if you knew what Marxist-Leninism actually is and how it differs from Maoism (which you have no excuse not to, it's been mentioned several times), you'd know that this supports Marxist-Leninism. Not to say that what you're saying is at all true- just because something is enacted by a government doesn't mean that the people are in favour.


It is, but, at any rate, beating out Cambodia for development isn't hard.

Do you believe those rankings yourself? Look at the countries at the top.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

1. You say that Cambodia is better than Laos- unsupported, of course.
2. I point out that the UN considers Laos to be higher on the HDI than Cambodia.
3. You say that the UN is biased.
4. This is ridiculous.
5. You deny you said it.
6. You say it again, again unsupported- although backhandedly conceding that you're wrong about Cambodia, which was the point you're trying to defend (without sources, of course. A 3.0 student should never have to condescend to using supported evidence!)

In all of those stages you were a tool.

[XieJinyuan]

Nothing unique about it.

Your point of view is Eurocentric and Hegelian.



A backward attitude like that would have us still voyaging off in our galleons to kidnap people for slavery.


/raises hand

Oh I'm not signing up here, nvm

Just kidding, I'm not in favor of slavery as it determines the price of menial labor too rigidly. In other words it's better to have a labor supply of uneducated people with nearly perfect competition than an oligopolistic market mediated by slave traders



And if you knew what Marxist-Leninism actually is and how it differs from Maoism (which you have no excuse not to, it's been mentioned several times),

I do, in fact, we had it shoved down our throats all throughout secondary school.



TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

1. You say that Cambodia is better than Laos- unsupported, of course.


When

When did I even mention Cambodia?

As far as I know it's another shitty country

[MikeSC]

Your point of view is Eurocentric and Hegelian.

Your interpretation of what those things are is wrong and this is just juvenile point scoring. Crises can be overcome, they have been overcome in the past- the history of mankind is in overcoming crises, creating new crises, overcoming those crises. The crises individual to capitalism are not universal. Get rid of capitalism, you get rid of capitalism's crises. And then you deal with whatever new crises come along- just like with the transition from pre-feudal slavery to feudalism, and the transition from feudalism to capitalism.


I do, in fact, we had it shoved down our throats all throughout secondary school.

Quote obviously you do not. You seem to think that the failure of agricultural countries to become communist is a failure of Marxist-Leninism. One of the main ideas behind Marxist-Leninism is that capitalism has to have progressed to industrialisation before attempting the transition to communism. Just like feudalism had to be sufficiently advanced to foster the right circumstances for capitalism.


When

When did I even mention Cambodia?

As far as I know it's another shitty country

"Case in point: the countryside of PDR Laos, granted, was bombed extensively during the Second Indochina War, but there's no way you can possibly blame the piss-poor poverty they are still in now on the West, or the US, in particular. In fact, they're now the poorest country in East Asia. Cambodia and Vietnam, who have relatively liberal economies, have fared substantially better."

Cambodia and Vietnam. We discussed Vietnam before (which is fully explained by Marxist-Leninism, culminating in you denying to have mentioned it and offering a list of other countries in it's place from wikipedia, who also were vaguely "Marxist" for only a very short time and not supportive of your argument in any way, shape or form.)

[XieJinyuan]

Your interpretation of what those things are is wrong and this is just juvenile point scoring. Crises can be overcome, they have been overcome in the past- the history of mankind is in overcoming crises, creating new crises, overcoming those crises. The crises individual to capitalism are not universal. Get rid of capitalism, you get rid of capitalism's crises.

And usher in many new ones.


Quote obviously you do not. You seem to think that the failure of agricultural countries to become communist is a failure of Marxist-Leninism. One of the main ideas behind Marxist-Leninism is that capitalism has to have progressed to industrialisation before attempting the transition to communism. Just like feudalism had to be sufficiently advanced to foster the right circumstances for capitalism.

The technology certainly existed by then so, doy, that's no excuse.



"Case in point: the countryside of PDR Laos, granted, was bombed extensively during the Second Indochina War, but there's no way you can possibly blame the piss-poor poverty they are still in now on the West, or the US, in particular. In fact, they're now the poorest country in East Asia. Cambodia and Vietnam, who have relatively liberal economies, have fared substantially better."


My bad, I was talking about GDP not HDI.

Incidentally Vietnam has a substantially higher per capita GDP than either of those countries.