Romanticizing USSR, Cuba, and China

[Idealism]

This isnt trolling. I just feel that many people arent regarding how bad these countries were. Did you just forget the mass summary exceptions in cuba? or how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated? How about during Mao's regime, how people were scared to dissent even in private, for fear of someone wire tapping their house?

No ideology can justify this.

[Cumannach]

Truly, these are horrors beyond words.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What the fuck are you talking about? Where is your evidence to prove any of this?!

The first two claims you make sound like typical slander, the third is simply ludicrous.

[Vahanian]

This isnt trolling. I just feel that many people arent regarding how bad these countries were. Did you just forget the mass summary exceptions in cuba? or how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated? How about during Mao's regime, how people were scared to dissent even in private, for fear of someone wire tapping their house?

No ideology can justify this.

the mass summary execution u speak of were against the people who raped tortured and generally fucked over the Cuban people during the Batista regime.and if you have any evidence of the other 2 I'd like to see it sparky.

[UndergroundConnexion]

Do you think that you changed the mind of anybody with those two sentence? Do you think people will go "ow shit i was wrong "?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't romanticize them nor support these countries. But there is the point that are not included in typical bourgeoisie news.


Did you just forget the mass summary exceptions in cuba? This is largely due to Fidel allowing a port on a special days where Cuban can leave their country. Now what would happen if this happen in the non-"C"ommunist country such as Mexico? You gonna have mass migration too.


how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated? I have seen innocent people being raided in America too, as police can get away from it.


How about during Mao's regime, how people were scared to dissent even in private This is wrong, there is knownigly that people were allowed to post criticize note on wall of communist's main building, the criticize note can also critize Mao and the miltant party without being targeted or fear for being dissent. This is especially important as the Kuomintang of China do not allowed this to happen or they will be shot. All thing went loose when Mao and the Gang of Four lose the power struggle during the cultural revolution. Anything related Deng and his association is not welcome here, however some do not like Mao here as I did.


for fear of someone wire tapping their house? Like American government have never done this before. :rolleyes:


No ideology can justify this.Especially for capitalism.

And I agreed with the above posts. This is crap and it does lacks evidence.

[RedScare]

Not very convincing argument OP. In my reading, the only even mildly substantiated claim of a massacre in Cuba was the executions carried out after the revolutions of cronies of the Batista dictatorship.

[Idealism]

What the fuck are you talking about? Where is your evidence to prove any of this?!

The first two claims you make sound like typical slander, the third is simply ludicrous.

Both were from personal accounts, 1 person i did know (from china) anouther account from a book (USSR).

You refute that dissent was not open in china, really the most obvious example is Tiananmen Square
If you want "proof" that can convince you, i cant give you any, but the fact the stalin sided with hitler and stalinism is built around strong state of authority, cult of personality, over a dictator should be pretty obvious

[Vahanian]

Both were from personal accounts, 1 person i did know (from china) another account from a book (USSR).

You refute that dissent was not open in china, really the most obvious example is Tienanmen Square
If you want "proof" that can convince you, i cant give you any, but the fact the Stalin sided with Hitler and Stalinist is built around strong state of authority, cult of personality, over a dictator should be pretty obvious

Most of us here don't like Stalin and most of us here agree that Stalin fucked the USSR up. big time. And we don't romanticize about theses country's any ways so this thread is basically pointless

edit: Stalin sided with Hitler because he needed to by time to rebuild his army and to gain a land barrier between Germany and Russia proper

[Bright Banana Beard]

You refute that dissent was not open in china, really the most obvious example is Tiananmen Square
Of course, it is not the proletariat state, Deng have taken controls and now you blame it on "Communism" instead of the leaders that betrayed the revolution. We do not support Chinese government, mind you, but we supports the early revolution which was genuine until the revisionist took it over such as Deng and his association. Blame it on American government too, they participated and helped Deng who created the today's china.


If you want "proof" that can convince you, i cant give you any, but the fact the stalin sided with hitler and stalinism is built around strong state of authority, cult of personality, over a dictator should be pretty obvious
I will leave this to another comrade to "re-educate" you about Stalin and you could read "Another View of Stalin."

[mykittyhasaboner]

Both were from personal accounts, 1 person i did know (from china) anouther account from a book (USSR).
OK, I'll take your word for it. :rolleyes:

What book is this supposed account from?


You refute that dissent was not open in china, really the most obvious example is Tiananmen SquareThe incident at Tinanmen Square took place in 1989, 13 years following Mao's death, so you don't make a very convincing case.

If you want "proof" that can convince you, i cant give you any,Well isn't that a surprise.


but the fact the stalin sided with hitler and stalinism is built around strong state of authority, cult of personality, over a dictator should be pretty obviousYeah, but you leave out the fact the the Soviet Union obliterated the Third Reich. You also offer a very shallow analysis of Stalin and the Soviet Union during his term as General Secretary.


Why are all of you trolls the same? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[Idealism]

Mao had the "red guard" which was a system of re-education of teenagers to arrest their parents, it could be equaled to hitler youth, or his brown shirts. Anyway they reported people for dissent, who would be jailed or killed. both mao and the ussr had mass purges of people who would speak out, both killing millions.

[Vahanian]

Mao had the "red guard" which was a system of re-education of teenagers to arrest their parents, it could be equaled to hitler youth, or his brown shirts. Anyway they reported people for dissent, who would be jailed or killed. both mao and the ussr had mass purges of people who would speak out, both killing millions.


Can some else point out to this person that we dont romantize about these countrys.srsly read around the forum and youll be able to see this

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes you do, but it would seem almost everyone else who replied doesnt.
Mao had the "red guard" which was a system of re-education of teenagers to arrest their parents, it could be equaled to hitler youth, or his brown shirts. Anyway they reported people for dissent, who would be jailed or killed. both mao and the ussr had mass purges of people who would speak out.

If you get this from bourgeoisie media, you still have not convinced us. Please give us proof that they arrested their parents. Comparison does not work.
Proof on purging please, if the dissenter are the majority, why the "socialist" government existed in the first place?

[Das war einmal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXkF2viFDgU

[Idealism]

Can some else point out to this person that we dont romantize about these countrys.srsly read around the forum and youll be able to see this

ill stop posting. this forum was stupid. Im really sorry, i'm half-asleep and sick.

[mykittyhasaboner]

ill stop posting. this forum was stupid. Im really sorry, i'm half-asleep and sick.

No, your just a troll and you have no idea what your talking about.

[Hiero]

The majority of the Chinese probally didn't have phones during Mao's era. That is a very strange claim to make up.

[TC]

This isnt trolling. I just feel that many people arent regarding how bad these countries were. Did you just forget the mass summary exceptions in cuba? or how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated? How about during Mao's regime, how people were scared to dissent even in private, for fear of someone wire tapping their house?

No ideology can justify this.


Actually far from 'romanticizing' the USSR, Cuba and China I find that most *demonize* them, like you do, because its so much easier than taking an honest and balanced appraisal.

They didn't raid random people's houses to keep the public intimidated, people weren't afraid to dissent during Mao's government, those claims are out of thin air and they only make sense to you because you're not even thinking. I mean really, those are just absurdist, just surreal.

[Vincent P.]

Even if China, USSR, Cuba and such actually did those things, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did, communism isn't to blame. Whether those countries were communist or not is even a matter of debate.

But the most clever thing to do in order to get some credit in the working class is to keep low profile on those questions.
All that matter is that the average Joe is convinced that those countries were hellish, so the best way to convince them that communism is cool is not to say "No way sir, it's just that you're a brainwashed bastard", regardless of the fact that you are too young to have lived as a mature adult under a genuine "socialist" country.
Instead, a basic politician trick is to take the average joe's opinion where it doesn't really matter in practice, such as the history of the movement.


If I summarize my post: romanticizing those countries in front of potential communists makes you look like the lefty version of those conspiracist Nazi negationist when you guys should look like practical ideologist for the future.

[Dóchas]

This isnt trolling


then whats the shit coming out of your mouth? :confused:



Both were from personal accounts, 1 person i did know (from china) anouther account from a book (USSR).


so you decided to condem a whole ideology on one book you read that probably was written by an anti communist anyway?

btw some sources would be appreciated so we can disprove all the bullshit you are telling us :)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think the fact that some people just want to believe that socialism has actually worked plays a part.

[el_chavista]

This isnt trolling. I just feel that many people arent regarding how bad these countries were. Did you just forget the mass summary exceptions in cuba? or how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated? How about during Mao's regime, how people were scared to dissent even in private, for fear of someone wire tapping their house?

No ideology can justify this.

Do you remember J. Edgar Hoover's list of 12,000 Americans suspicious of not being loyal to Washington?

We in Latinamerica know and feel anticommunism = repression, torture and death in the name of the "free world".

[mykittyhasaboner]

I think the fact that some people just want to believe that socialism has actually worked plays a part.
Care to elaborate? Or add something of value?

[Rjevan]

or how in the USSR how they raided random peoples houses just to keep the public intimidated?
Oh, come on, this is just silly. Any proof besides some anti-communist websites?


Mao had the "red guard" which was a system of re-education of teenagers to arrest their parents, it could be equaled to hitler youth, or his brown shirts.
The Red Guards weren't built to arrest their parents and compairing them to the HJ is "slightly" over the top.


both mao and the ussr had mass purges of people who would speak out, both killing millions.
Don't believe everything the capitalist propaganda says. Besides, I'm so glad that one could speak out and live without the fear of being reported for dissent in Senator McCarthy's America. :rolleyes:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Care to elaborate? Or add something of value?

What exactly don't you get? Some people seem to disregard every indication that a particular country may not have been/isn't socialist as bourgeois propaganda, and I think they do it because they want to believe that socialism has worked or is working.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What exactly don't you get? Some people seem to disregard every indication that a particular country may not have been/isn't socialist as bourgeois propaganda, and I think they do it because they want to believe that socialism has worked or is working.

So how is this in anyway relevant to the blatantly false and shallow accusations that the OP puts forward. These "indications" are most likely product of hearsay or just regular slander, if they aren't backed up by sufficient information and evidence then it most likely is propaganda or just straight up bullshit. To say that people attribute such claims as propaganda is a cop out because "they want to believe that socialism has worked or is working" might be true in some cases, but we all know that there is a very broad reaching, planned, and effective propaganda campaign against socialism and any country proclaiming themselves as Marxist-Leninist or socialist. So really, when we are disgusted with ridiculous claims like "the Red Guard was a form of re-education and teenagers were forced to arrest their parents" we can rightfully say its either propaganda or bullshit because no evidence is provided to prove it. "Wiretapping in Maoist China" is complete nonsense.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So how is this in anyway relevant to the blatantly false and shallow accusations that the OP puts forward.

I was addressing why I think a lot of people romanticize these countries.


These "indications" are most likely product of hearsay or just regular slander, if they aren't backed up by sufficient information and evidence then it most likely is propaganda or just straight up bullshit. To say that people attribute such claims as propaganda is a cop out because "they want to believe that socialism has worked or is working" might be true in some cases, but we all know that there is a very broad reaching, planned, and effective propaganda campaign against socialism and any country proclaiming themselves as Marxist-Leninist or socialist.

A lot of the time it seems to be based on faith. On one hand people will take it on faith that every anti-USSR or anti-DPRK or anti-whatever source is "bourgeois propaganda" while at the same time accepting any pro-whatever source as truth.


So really, when we are disgusted with ridiculous claims like "the Red Guard was a form of re-education and teenagers were forced to arrest their parents" we can rightfully say its either propaganda or bullshit because no evidence is provided to prove it. "Wiretapping in Maoist China" is complete nonsense.

Is any evidence provided to prove that it wasn't? How do you know?

[manic expression]

I think the fact that some people just want to believe that socialism has actually worked plays a part.

Just looking at the statistics on standards of living, the numbers don't lie. The Soviet Union and Cuba (especially Cuba) are two great examples of how socialism creates a better life for the majority. It's not about a romantic view of anything, most of the time it's about simply defending socialism from capitalist slander.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Just looking at the statistics on standards of living, the numbers don't lie. The Soviet Union and Cuba (especially Cuba) are two great examples of how socialism creates a better life for the majority. It's not about a romantic view of anything, most of the time it's about simply defending socialism from capitalist slander.

Just looking at the statistics on standards of living, the numbers don't lie. Norway and Sweden are two great examples of how welfare capitalism creates a better life for the majority.

We don't judge countries based on their standard of living, we judge them based on who has power. The idea that Cuba or the USSR were socialism is laughable, but not surprising coming from the guy that equates party rule with socialism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I was addressing why I think a lot of people romanticize these countries.

OK. Although I have a hard time believing that many people "romanticize" ex-Marxist-Leninist states. People who support the SU, China, or whatever tend to be hardcore realists.



A lot of the time it seems to be based on faith. On one hand people will take it on faith that every anti-USSR or anti-DPRK or anti-whatever source is "bourgeois propaganda" while at the same time accepting any pro-whatever source as truth.
Well that maybe the case when you have seen people throw around the phrase "bourgeois propaganda"; but if you critically analyze every source that you come across and make conclusions from your analysis then its not based on faith, its based on scientific interpretation.



Is any evidence provided to prove that it wasn't? How do you know?The wiretapping in Maoist china? That's laughable, TC already mentioned that the majority of the population in China at the time didn't have a phone.

On the Red Guards, yes there were arrests made by them. But there was no "re-education" initiative, and there is no evidence to support that teenagers were forced to arrest their own parents (or whatever crap the OP claims).


Just looking at the statistics on standards of living, the numbers don't lie. Norway and Sweden are two great examples of how welfare capitalism creates a better life for the majority.

We don't judge countries based on their standard of living, we judge them based on who has power. The idea that Cuba or the USSR were socialism is laughable, but not surprising coming from the guy that equates party rule with socialism.
Well, we do judge countries by standard of living. Norway is a much better capitalist country than the US for example, because they have more social services that enhance the lives of the people.

Cuba is a much better country for working people than say Colombia or Mexico (where capitalist oligarchs who are like lapdogs for the US rule). Cuba has a much higher living standards due to its emphasis on providing quality health care, education, etc while the governments Colombia and Mexico are engaged in drug/political violence and do not offer the working classes anywhere near the type of benefits that working people in Cuba get.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

OK. Although I have a hard time believing that many people "romanticize" ex-Marxist-Leninist states. People who support the SU, China, or whatever tend to be hardcore realists.

Okay, support then.



Well that maybe the case when you have seen people throw around the phrase "bourgeois propaganda"; but if you critically analyze every source that you come across and make conclusions from your analysis then its not based on faith, its based on scientific interpretation.
Personally it seems almost impossible to come to accurate conclusions without relying on at least a little faith when faced with all of the propaganda coming from both sides.


The wiretapping in Maoist china? That's laughable, TC already mentioned that the majority of the population in China at the time didn't have a phone.
Obviously people without phones would not fear people wiretapping their house, so I don't really see the relevance. He also didn't say they actually did wiretap people, he said people were afraid that they did.


On the Red Guards, yes there were arrests made by them. But there was no "re-education" initiative, and there is no evidence to support that teenagers were forced to arrest their own parents (or whatever crap the OP claims).Weren't you just saying we can disregard any statement as bullshit or propaganda if no evidence is provided?


Well, we do judge countries by standard of living. Norway is a much better capitalist country than the US for example, because they have more social services that enhance the lives of the people. We shouldn't. Judging countries based on standard of living and not who is in power takes us to the conclusion that Norway is a better country than Cuba. Cuba has way lower standards of living but (i'm assuming for the sake of argument) power is in the hands of the workers.

[manic expression]

Just looking at the statistics on standards of living, the numbers don't lie. Norway and Sweden are two great examples of how welfare capitalism creates a better life for the majority.

Irrelevant. Scandinavia has been using funds from oil and other industries to create social programs within a capitalist framework, whereas Cuba has working-class control of the means of production. However, to bring this back to your original argument, people who defend socialist states are not romanticizing anything but pointing to established fact on life in said countries. Try not to avoid the issue next time.


We don't judge countries based on their standard of living, we judge them based on who has power. The idea that Cuba or the USSR were socialism is laughable, but not surprising coming from the guy that equates party rule with socialism.Really? Then you would do well to address that whole "abolition of private property, commodity production, exploitation...capitalism" thing I outlined. At any rate, by "the guy that equates party rule with socialism", could you be referring to Marx? After all, party rule is precisely what he promoted, party rule of the workers. This is exactly what exists in Cuba.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that many members of the Cuban government are NOT members of the PCC, and that the PCC has NO involvement in the nomination process or the electoral process in general, putting Cuban elections fully in the hands of communities and not political parties. But no matter, I'm sure you find such facts to be too romantic for your taste.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
If you want to learn about how the Cuban political process actually works, please review the link on the left, "Democracy in Cuba", and remember to note the sources it cites.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Okay, support then.
Gotchya.


Personally it seems almost impossible to come to accurate conclusions without relying on at least a little faith when faced with all of the propaganda coming from both sides.

It's not impossible. One can sort out what's propaganda/bullshit and what isnt; for example a first hand account isn't propaganda its one person's perspective, which can shed light on the actual events that said account is describing. You just have to know where your source is coming from, and sources should be well presented with facutal evidence.


Obviously people without phones would not fear people wiretapping their house, so I don't really see the relevance. He also didn't say they actually did wiretap people, he said people were afraid that they did.

The relevance is that the speculation of wiretapping in Maoist China is bullshit and doesn't deserve to even be given a chance at being identified as truth.


Weren't you just saying we can disregard any statement as bullshit or propaganda if no evidence is provided?
Wikipedia does some justice here, and if Wikipedia (which has an anti-lefitst slant) doesn't say anything about the Red Guards having "re-education" initiatives, then I'm sure the whole claim is just nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_(China)#cite_note-12


We shouldn't. Judging countries based on standard of living and not who is in power takes us to the conclusion that Norway is a better country than Cuba. Cuba has way lower standards of living but (i'm assuming for the sake of argument) power is in the hands of the workers.

I didn't mean we should judge countries solely on standards of living, but it should play a part in one's judgment. That is why I compared Cuba to Colombia or Mexico, where the standard of living is more of an equal comparison than if one were to compare Norway and Cuba like you did.

You wanted evidence for my claims about Cuba so here, there is a plethora of articles, quotes, studies, and other information on this website.
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Too bad the Cuba Truth Project is down, it had a compilation of statistics comparing Cuba to other Latin American countries as well as the US and Canada. :(

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Irrelevant. Scandinavia has been using funds from oil and other industries to create social programs within a capitalist framework, whereas Cuba has working-class control of the means of production. However, to bring this back to your original argument, people who defend socialist states are not romanticizing anything but pointing to established fact on life in said countries. Try not to avoid the issue next time.

And the USSR didn't have massive natural reserves? You just said Standard of living, not how it was arrived at. Your established fact that those countries were/are democratic is not so established, as the established view in the world is that these countries were/are evil dictatorships where the leaders kill people for fun.


Really? Then you would do well to address that whole "abolition of private property, commodity production, exploitation...capitalism" thing I outlined. At any rate, by "the guy that equates party rule with socialism", could you be referring to Marx? After all, party rule is precisely what he promoted, party rule of the workers. This is exactly what exists in Cuba.Abolition of private property? You mean in Cuba, where a quarter of the economy is in private hands? :rolleyes: No, I'm not referring to Marx. I'm referring to your distorted interpretation of one line in all of his works in order to justify party dictatorship. Marx promoted rule of the workers, not a party "acting in the interests" of the workers.


Of course, this is ignoring the fact that many members of the Cuban government are NOT members of the PCC, and that the PCC has NO involvement in the nomination process or the electoral process in general, putting Cuban elections fully in the hands of communities and not political parties. But no matter, I'm sure you find such facts to be too romantic for your taste.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)
If you want to learn about how the Cuban political process actually works, please review the link on the left, "Democracy in Cuba", and remember to note the sources it cites.I've read a few of those sources. "Democracy" alone doesn't make a country socialist. I have never denied that Cuba could very well be a proletarian democracy.

[Kernewek]

Do you remember J. Edgar Hoover's list of 12,000 Americans suspicious of not being loyal to Washington?

We in Latinamerica know and feel anticommunism = repression, torture and death in the name of the "free world".

I've never got why so many people here suddenly start criticising America when you attack "socialist" governments. yeah Americas a capitalist shit whole, no one’s denying that. But I thought socialism was supposed to better than capitalism? shouldn't we expect more from an apparently socialist country?

out of interest, all those who are defending Stalin, how do you explain the mass graves which have been found in Russia and former soviet territories?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It's not impossible. One can sort out what's propaganda/bullshit and what isnt; for example a first hand account isn't propaganda its one person's perspective, which can shed light on the actual events that said account is describing. You just have to know where your source is coming from, and sources should be well presented with facutal evidence.

Most first hand accounts from these countries seem to be against them. How do you know a set of information is factual? Maybe I'm just too skeptical.


The relevance is that the speculation of wiretapping in Maoist China is bullshit and doesn't deserve to even be given a chance at being identified as truth. If 99.9% of the population had no phone, it doesn't prove that the other .01% wasn't be wiretapped. Again, he didn't say wiretapping was going on, he said the people were paranoid that it was. People in America are paranoid that the US is going to be dissolved into the NAU. I think you get the point.



Wikipedia does some justice here, and if Wikipedia (which has an anti-lefitst slant) doesn't say anything about the Red Guards having "re-education" initiatives, then I'm sure the whole claim is just nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_(China)#cite_note-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_%28China%29#cite_note-12)
I was just giving you a hard time because you called his accusations bullshit because he provided no evidence, and then went on to do the same thing.



I didn't mean we should judge countries solely on standards of living, but it should play a part in one's judgment. That is why I compared Cuba to Colombia or Mexico, where the standard of living is more of an equal comparison than if one were to compare Norway and Cuba like you did.
And then there's the blockade. I was just showing that standards of living alone don't mean anything. Manic Expression seemed to think that the USSR and Cuba making gains in increasing the standard of living proved the existence of socialism or made them worthy of our support.


You wanted evidence for my claims about Cuba so here, there is a plethora of articles, quotes, studies, and other information on this website.
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)I've read some of the info there.


Too bad the Cuba Truth Project is down, it had a compilation of statistics comparing Cuba to other Latin American countries as well as the US and Canada. :(I know! I got into an edit war with some pro-Batista guy on wiki and wanted to use the statistics from there to back me up.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Most first hand accounts from these countries seem to be against them. How do you know a set of information is factual? Maybe I'm just too skeptical.
Perhaps, though I don't know of too many first hand accounts so I cant make a judgment. I do know of some good ones though, obviously Ten Days That Shook the World is a great one.


If 99.9% of the population had no phone, it doesn't prove that the other .01% wasn't be wiretapped. Again, he didn't say wiretapping was going on, he said the people were paranoid that it was. People in America are paranoid that the US is going to be dissolved into the NAU. I think you get the point. I see your point, I just think its incredibly unlikely.


I was just giving you a hard time because you called his accusations bullshit because he provided no evidence, and then went on to do the same thing.
Sure enough.


And then there's the blockade. I was just showing that standards of living alone don't mean anything. Manic Expression seemed to think that the USSR and Cuba making gains in increasing the standard of living proved the existence of socialism or made them worthy of our support.Point taken, but I still think the standards of living play a major role in indicating whether or not socialist organization is working properly.




I know! I got into an edit war with some pro-Batista guy on wiki and wanted to use the statistics from there to back me up. We need to find out whats going on with that site.

[manic expression]

And the USSR didn't have massive natural reserves? You just said Standard of living, not how it was arrived at.

Yes, because that, alone, disproves your original assertions. You claimed defenders of socialist nations romanticized them; this is untrue because the achievements of these countries are quite well documented, and these form the basis of the so-called "romanticized" view of socialist states.

Why do you keep running away from the original premise of your argument?


Your established fact that those countries were/are democratic is not so established, as the established view in the world is that these countries were/are evil dictatorships where the leaders kill people for fun.

Those are "established" urban legends which go against the facts, but I understand why you would bring them up.


Abolition of private property? You mean in Cuba, where a quarter of the economy is in private hands?

You're going to have to back that up; and please note that "private hands" in Cuba oftentimes means a family-run restaurant in a private home, which is not a privatized industry by any materialist definition (they don't employ workers).


No, I'm not referring to Marx. I'm referring to your distorted interpretation of one line in all of his works in order to justify party dictatorship. Marx promoted rule of the workers, not a party "acting in the interests" of the workers.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.


They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.


They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

If a proletarian party is in power, then the interests of the proletariat are in power. That's the point of a revolution.


I've read a few of those sources. "Democracy" alone doesn't make a country socialist. I have never denied that Cuba could very well be a proletarian democracy.

What, then, is your definition for a "socialist country"?

[Cumannach]

For a country to be socialist, the streets must be paved with gold, the factories must be made of chocolate and everybody must loll around in the meadows weaving daisy chains for at least half of every day.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Yes, because that, alone, disproves your original assertions. You claimed defenders of socialist nations romanticized them; this is untrue because the achievements of these countries are quite well documented, and these form the basis of the so-called "romanticized" view of socialist states.

Why do you keep running away from the original premise of your argument?

My original assertion was that I think that some people pass off any indicator that a country wasn't/isn't socialist as bourgeoius propaganda because they want to believe that socialism has/is working. Nobody claimed that people romanticized them by exaggerating the gains they made in living standards. You pulled that out of your arse.


Those are "established" urban legends which go against the facts, but I understand why you would bring them up.You're going to have to back that up.



You're going to have to back that up; and please note that "private hands" in Cuba oftentimes means a family-run restaurant in a private home, which is not a privatized industry by any materialist definition (they don't employ workers).Does having lots of posts mean you can just make assertions and they become fact, while people like me need to back our statements up?


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.


They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.


They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

If a proletarian party is in power, then the interests of the proletariat are in power. That's the point of a revolution.That quote doesn't justify party dictatorship, because party dictatorship is not in the interest of the workers. Workers rule, however, is. Either way, if assume that Marx did in fact support party rule instead of class rule, why would I care? I'm not going to agree with something because he said it.

Anyway, he also said this: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.



What, then, is your definition for a "socialist country"?Stateless and classless society under workers control.


For a country to be socialist, the streets must be paved with gold, the factories must be made of chocolate and everybody must loll around in the meadows weaving daisy chains for at least half of every day.

Even worse, they expect the country to actually be under workers control! How impractical! Damn those utopians for expecting to have a classless and stateless society that's actually classless and stateless!

[PRC-UTE]

For a country to be socialist, the streets must be paved with gold, the factories must be made of chocolate and everybody must loll around in the meadows weaving daisy chains for at least half of every day.

ahahahaha. :thumbup1:

I sometimes get the impression there is more love for bourgeois liberalism than socialism in some of our members.

[manic expression]

My original assertion was that I think that some people pass off any indicator that a country wasn't/isn't socialist as bourgeoius propaganda because they want to believe that socialism has/is working.

And dramatic increases in living standards aren't "any indicator", they're hard facts and statistics about everyday life. That was what I addressed, and that is what you promptly avoided.


You're going to have to back that up.

No, you are, because you're the one who brought up absurd fantasies about the Soviet Union and other socialist states. If I claim that babies are a common delicacy in California, it's not someone else's responsibility to "back up" the claim that they aren't. Stop being thick.


Does having lots of posts mean you can just make assertions and they become fact, while people like me need to back our statements up?

You made an assertion about Cuba, I asked you to provide evidence for it. It has nothing to do with post count, and if you thought rationally about the discussion for five seconds you'd have come to that conclusion, too. Needless to say, you didn't.


That quote doesn't justify party dictatorship, because party dictatorship is not in the interest of the workers. Workers rule, however, is. Either way, if assume that Marx did in fact support party rule instead of class rule, why would I care? I'm not going to agree with something because he said it.

It doesn't really justify anything, what it does is identify the class interests inherent in the communist movement. If the workers are to take power, and the communist party represents only the interests of the workers, then the party can and should and will take power. Party rule, then, is "workers rule", and your inability to comprehend this elementary Marxist concept exposes how superficial your understanding of socialism really is.

No, you shouldn't agree with Marx "because he said it". You are more than free to disagree with Marx, and in fact I find it quite fitting that you do so.


Anyway, he also said this: The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.

Yes, and who is to carry out this work? The most politically advanced and dedicated workers, organized in some form: a party. Remember what Marx was writing the Manifesto for in the first place.


Stateless and classless society under workers control.

If there are no classes, and the workers are a class, how is there to be "workers control" in a classless society? Your definition is self-contradictory.


Even worse, they expect the country to actually be under workers control! How impractical! Damn those utopians for expecting to have a classless and stateless society that's actually classless and stateless!

Cuba is under the control of the workers. Please check the link I provided earlier (remember that whole evidence thing you ignored?).

And the point is that your definition for socialism is anti-materialist, anti-scientific, self-contradictory and finally useless. I guess it makes sense for you, as it's easier to not defend socialism and instead bury your head in the sands of impossibility.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And dramatic increases in living standards aren't "any indicator", they're hard facts and statistics about everyday life. That was what I addressed, and that is what you promptly avoided.

Increases in living standards aren't an indicator that socialism exists. I didn't avoid anything, I never denied that they made gains in standards of living.



No, you are, because you're the one who brought up absurd fantasies about the Soviet Union and other socialist states. If I claim that babies are a common delicacy in California, it's not someone else's responsibility to "back up" the claim that they aren't. Stop being thick.I didn't bring up "absurd fantasies," you're confusing me with the OP. Also, it is well known that Californians to not eat babies. By saying that you would be challenging established information. On the other hand, only a small minority consider your facts to be facts. I think that is a good enough reason for me to demand evidence.


You made an assertion about Cuba, I asked you to provide evidence for it. It has nothing to do with post count, and if you thought rationally about the discussion for five seconds you'd have come to that conclusion, too. Needless to say, you didn't.You made an assertion about Cuba and the USSR, I asked you to provide evidence for it.


It doesn't really justify anything, what it does is identify the class interests inherent in the communist movement. If the workers are to take power, and the communist party represents only the interests of the workers, then the party can and should and will take power. Party rule, then, is "workers rule", and your inability to comprehend this elementary Marxist concept exposes how superficial your understanding of socialism really is.It is in the class interests of the workers for the workers to take power, and not some party that claims to rule in its interests. We know where this has ended up. You're pretty much just playing word games based on a statement Marx made referring to the communist league.


Yes, and who is to carry out this work? The most politically advanced and dedicated workers, organized in some form: a party. Remember what Marx was writing the Manifesto for in the first place.Did I deny this?



If there are no classes, and the workers are a class, how is there to be "workers control" in a classless society? Your definition is self-contradictory.No it isn't. The distinction of class would no longer exist. They're still workers. If you disagree, then we could just say democratic rule.


And the point is that your definition for socialism is anti-materialist, anti-scientific, self-contradictory and finally useless. I guess it makes sense for you, as it's easier to not defend socialism and instead bury your head in the sands of impossibility.Are you kidding me? This coming from the guy that says my understanding of Marx is superficial? :laugh:

[manic expression]

Increases in living standards aren't an indicator that socialism exists.

It has a bearing on romanticization vs reality. That's what you're avoiding.


I didn't bring up "absurd fantasies,"

Go back to what you wrote, it wasn't even an objective claim.

Your established fact that those countries were/are democratic is not so established, as the established view in the world is that these countries were/are evil dictatorships where the leaders kill people for fun.

Here we are, still at square one: if you want to employ this urban legend, you're going to have to support it in some meaningful way.

As for my part, I already provided documentation of the democratic processes of the socialist Cuban state.


You made an assertion about Cuba and the USSR, I asked you to provide evidence for it.

I disputed your claim about Cuba, and so far you have no evidence to back what you said. My only assertion is that your own assertion has no evidence, which is perfectly correct given the present situation. The burden of proof is on you, I simply asked you for some citations. If you're unwilling or unable to provide evidence, that tells us quite a bit about the validity of your positions.


It is in the class interests of the workers for the workers to take power, and not some party that claims to rule in its interests. We know where this has ended up. You're pretty much just playing word games based on a statement Marx made referring to the communist league.

The passage from Marx I quoted plainly stated that communists have no interests outside the interests of the proletariat. If the communist party is ruling, it is ruling in the interests of the working class, and moreover the workers are in power. That's not a word game, that's class struggle playing out in the real world; I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.

The equation of Marxism is that the communists, organized as a party, represent and further the interests of the workers as a whole. The rule of this party, then, is working-class state power.


Did I deny this?

Just a few sentences back.

It is in the class interests of the workers for the workers to take power, and not some party that claims to rule in its interests.

It's not about "some party", it's about a party made up of revolutionary workers which pursues the interests of the proletariat. That is what the Bolsheviks represented, as well as the Cuban revolutionaries. That's what makes a revolution, that's what makes socialism.


No it isn't. The distinction of class would no longer exist. They're still workers. If you disagree, then we could just say democratic rule.

"Workers" aren't just people who make stuff. Using that logic, peasants are workers, but they aren't, so let's not use that logic. "Workers", in the materialist sense, comprise the proletariat, an industrial working class which is conditioned by the industrial bourgeoisie. In a classless society, this definition would be rendered outdated and irrelevant in just about every sense.

"Democratic rule" is basically meaningless on its own. It's an abstract concept, and what's more it implies that there is something to rule. A stateless society needs no such trappings.


Are you kidding me? This coming from the guy that says my understanding of Marx is superficial? :laugh:

More side-stepping. I figured as much.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

It has a bearing on romanticization vs reality. That's what you're avoiding.

No one argued that people romanticized those countries by exaggerating their standard of living, so I'm not going to keep adressing this, as I never denied that they made gains in that area in the first place.


Go back to what you wrote, it wasn't even an objective claim.

Your established fact that those countries were/are democratic is not so established, as the established view in the world is that these countries were/are evil dictatorships where the leaders kill people for fun.

Here we are, still at square one: if you want to employ this urban legend, you're going to have to support it in some meaningful way.

As for my part, I already provided documentation of the democratic processes of the socialist Cuban state.I didn't say I believed that, I said it was the established view in the world. It is also the established view in the world that Bourgeois democracy is actually democracy, but I think we would contest that.

You can provide documentation proving anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index

According to that, Cuba is a dictatorship. You will no doubt quote this and make up some crap about me believing Cuba is a dictatorship, but I'm just posting it to prove a point.



I disputed your claim about Cuba, and so far you have no evidence to back what you said. My only assertion is that your own assertion has no evidence, which is perfectly correct given the present situation. The burden of proof is on you, I simply asked you for some citations. If you're unwilling or unable to provide evidence, that tells us quite a bit about the validity of your positions.I disputed your claims about those countries being socialist, and so far you have no evidence to back up what you said. I made no Claims about Cuba not being democratic. Again, you are pulling things out of your arse.

I'm not going to provide evidence for my assertions if you aren't.


The passage from Marx I quoted plainly stated that communists have no interests outside the interests of the proletariat. If the communist party is ruling, it is ruling in the interests of the working class, and moreover the workers are in power. That's not a word game, that's class struggle playing out in the real world; I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.

The equation of Marxism is that the communists, organized as a party, represent and further the interests of the workers as a whole. The rule of this party, then, is working-class state power.It is not in the interests of the working class to not be in power. I'm not going to get into an argument where you repeat what you've said while I repeat my response over and over. Your elementary facts of Marxism are only facts to a small handful of Stalinists.


Just a few sentences back.

It is in the class interests of the workers for the workers to take power, and not some party that claims to rule in its interests.

It's not about "some party", it's about a party made up of revolutionary workers which pursues the interests of the proletariat. That is what the Bolsheviks represented, as well as the Cuban revolutionaries. That's what makes a revolution, that's what makes socialism.And where in that sentence did I say that a workers party shouldn't lead the overthrowing of the bourgeois state?


"Workers" aren't just people who make stuff. Using that logic, peasants are workers, but they aren't, so let's not use that logic. "Workers", in the materialist sense, comprise the proletariat, an industrial working class which is conditioned by the industrial bourgeoisie. In a classless society, this definition would be rendered outdated and irrelevant in just about every sense.Everyone is a worker, so there are no classes. I'm not going to argue semantics, it's pointless. I don't care what word we use, the point is that everyone governs.


"Democratic rule" is basically meaningless on its own. It's an abstract concept, and what's more it implies that there is something to rule. A stateless society needs no such trappings.It's kind of funny seeing a so-called Marxist adopt Bakunin's arguments:

Bakunin: The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Marx: Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

Bakunin: The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.

Marx: If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.

More side-stepping. I figured as much.Okay then, let's hear how you would define socialism.

[manic expression]

According to that, Cuba is a dictatorship. You will no doubt quote this and make up some crap about me believing Cuba is a dictatorship, but I'm just posting it to prove a point.

That very thing is what we are trying to determine. Citing blatantly incorrect positions doesn't help in this regard. The point you're proving is utterly tangential and deflects from our purpose.


I disputed your claims about those countries being socialist, and so far you have no evidence to back up what you said. I made no Claims about Cuba not being democratic. Again, you are pulling things out of your arse.

Wrong. I've demonstrated that the Cuban workers control the means of production and the state; I've analyzed the economic foundations of the USSR, something you've failed to adequately address. What have you done? I thought so.

You keep bringing this back to some conception of democracy, but this is about socialism, which is working-class state power. The Cuban workers' relationship to their government is a defining feature of Cuban society, and that is precisely what makes it socialist.


I'm not going to provide evidence for my assertions if you aren't.

I have. You haven't.


It is not in the interests of the working class to not be in power.

Which is why the communist party must conquer power. That's just basic Marxism.


I'm not going to get into an argument where you repeat what you've said while I repeat my response over and over. Your elementary facts of Marxism are only facts to a small handful of Stalinists.

Sorry, but these elementary aspects of Marxism are facts to all Marxists. Trying to paint me as a Stalinist is just another attempt at diverting the argument.


And where in that sentence did I say that a workers party shouldn't lead the overthrowing of the bourgeois state?

It was fully implied when you refused to support the results of the Russian and Cuban revolutions, which were led by revolutionary working-class parties. The issue here is application of Marxism to the real world, not that you might agree to some hypothetical party leading a hypothetical revolution.


Everyone is a worker, so there are no classes. I'm not going to argue semantics, it's pointless. I don't care what word we use, the point is that everyone governs.

One class is not no class, and more importantly the working class exists only in conjunction with the bourgeoisie, disenfranchised or otherwise. Stop running away from your own definition.


It's kind of funny seeing a so-called Marxist adopt Bakunin's arguments:

Bakunin: The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Marx: Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

Bakunin: The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.

Marx: If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.

Another irrelevant allusion. Marx was talking about self-government of a commune. You were using an abstract term which can be applied to ancient Athens, ancient Rome, the Estates General and many other non-socialist and certainly non-communist institutions. "Democratic rule", on its own, is no definition for socialism or communism or anything that might be deemed useful in the course of discussion.


Okay then, let's hear how you would define socialism.

The abolition of private property through working-class state power.

[redSHARP]

am i the only one who has noted that we chased some body off the forum? yeah he posted something ignorant, but i think we should have been a bit more diplomatic, and politely suggested an alternative.

if he was trolling then fuck him.

if he was seriously asking a question, then we just lost some one who was willing to be red. he probably is pissed and angry at communism and now hates us. if you blow it off as "he was a douche", then you are really solving the issue; which is

dumb question + attacking the asker = another person leaving the forum

maybe i am paranoid about him now not liking communism yet we should consider ourselves the ambassadors of communism and should be polite to anyone (not matter how ignorant) on this forum. most likely we were just like him at some point and wanted to learn a bit more. and maybe i blew this out of proportion, but please the lesson here is to not insult or put down new members just because they wrote down a rather ignorant post. we are all here to learn, some of us are farther along and know more than others, lets remember that.

[Idealism]

am i the only one who has noted that we chased some body off the forum? yeah he posted something ignorant, but i think we should have been a bit more diplomatic, and politely suggested an alternative.

if he was trolling then fuck him.

if he was seriously asking a question, then we just lost some one who was willing to be red. he probably is pissed and angry at communism and now hates us. if you blow it off as "he was a douche", then you are really solving the issue; which is

dumb question + attacking the asker = another person leaving the forum

maybe i am paranoid about him now not liking communism yet we should consider ourselves the ambassadors of communism and should be polite to anyone (not matter how ignorant) on this forum. most likely we were just like him at some point and wanted to learn a bit more. and maybe i blew this out of proportion, but please the lesson here is to not insult or put down new members just because they wrote down a rather ignorant post. we are all here to learn, some of us are farther along and know more than others, lets remember that.

Thank you for being reasonable, and you have not lost me, and i tried to apologize for being ignorant a ways back. Still, though nobody has suggested what these countries "truly" were.

[redSHARP]

well lets state you beliefs in an organized manner, then we can post our views in an organized manner.

my beliefs are:

a. yeah fucked up shit happened, but who hasn't?
b. there are reasonable explanations for what happened, "the victims were former Baptistas who did the same to the rebels". the main question is, does two wrongs make a right? and, how far is one willing to go for revolution?
c. some of it is anti-communist propaganda, but we have to be very careful with that statement. it can backfire, for example:

"STALIN did not kill anyone, its all made up CAPITALIST propaganda"
"HITLER did not kill anyone, its all made up ZIONIST propaganda"

an extreme case, but the logic is still there; we can not simple write everything off as anti-communist propaganda. we need facts and evidence for refuting anything, which for the most part we do have.

i am happy you stayed and please ask any question you want, we are all here to learn.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

"STALIN did not kill anyone, its all made up CAPITALIST propaganda"
"HITLER did not kill anyone, its all made up ZIONIST propaganda"



Thank you so much for posting this, man. I've seen some stupid shit on here, but this restores my faith.

100% agreed with RedSHARP.
We can't turn on each other, that's what's fucking up the left! Little squabbles are fucking stupid... we gotta pull together. It's a learning experience for many.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That very thing is what we are trying to determine. Citing blatantly incorrect positions doesn't help in this regard. The point you're proving is utterly tangential and deflects from our purpose.

I'm not trying to determine that, I've said many times in this thread that I think Cuba could certainly be a healthy proletarian democracy. That's the third thing that you've argued against without me ever bringing up.




Wrong. I've demonstrated that the Cuban workers control the means of production and the state; I've analyzed the economic foundations of the USSR, something you've failed to adequately address. What have you done? I thought so.

You keep bringing this back to some conception of democracy, but this is about socialism, which is working-class state power. The Cuban workers' relationship to their government is a defining feature of Cuban society, and that is precisely what makes it socialist.As noted above, I never said Cuba wasn't a proletarian democracy. Your consistent failure to follow the argument is extremely tiresome.

Socialism is not working-class state power, that's the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


I have. You haven't.If you did, your post must have been deleted.



Which is why the communist party must conquer power. That's just basic Marxism.Which is why the working class must be in power. That's just basic Marxism.


Sorry, but these elementary aspects of Marxism are facts to all Marxists. Trying to paint me as a Stalinist is just another attempt at diverting the argument.
Read what you quoted.

And as far as me trying to divert the argument, I think that's a bit like calling the kettle black, coming from the guy trying to refute points that I never made.


It was fully implied when you refused to support the results of the Russian and Cuban revolutions, which were led by revolutionary working-class parties. The issue here is application of Marxism to the real world, not that you might agree to some hypothetical party leading a hypothetical revolution.No, it wasn't. You are seeing things in what I write that aren't there, but this is fully consistent with you arguing style.


One class is not no class, and more importantly the working class exists only in conjunction with the bourgeoisie, disenfranchised or otherwise. Stop running away from your own definition.Stop running away from what I've actually said. I didn't say working class.


Another irrelevant allusion. Marx was talking about self-government of a commune. You were using an abstract term which can be applied to ancient Athens, ancient Rome, the Estates General and many other non-socialist and certainly non-communist institutions. "Democratic rule", on its own, is no definition for socialism or communism or anything that might be deemed useful in the course of discussion.
Did any of those incorporate statelessness or classlessness? No. You said if we have rule by the whole people, then no one is ruled. That is exactly like Bakunin's argument.


Thank you for being reasonable, and you have not lost me, and i tried to apologize for being ignorant a ways back. Still, though nobody has suggested what these countries "truly" were.

You aren't going to find out here, sadly. There are too many people with too many opinions. You seem to be interested, so your best bet is to just read some Marx and figure things out for yourself. Not very enlightening, but there's nothing better that anyone could tell you.

[manic expression]

I'm not trying to determine that, I've said many times in this thread that I think Cuba could certainly be a healthy proletarian democracy. That's the third thing that you've argued against without me every bringing up.


As noted above, I never said Cuba wasn't a proletarian democracy. Your consistent failure to follow the argument is extremely tiresome.


Socialism is not working-class state power, that's the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat IS socialism. You must remember that there are many different ways to use the term, but in this context it can (and does) refer to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


If you did, your post must have been deleted.

It might as well have, since you're dancing around the conclusions inherent in the facts.


Which is why the working class must be in power. That's just basic Marxism.

The working class, led by the most advanced workers, organized in a party. Exactly.


And as far as me trying to divert the argument, I think that's a bit like calling the kettle black, coming from the guy trying to refute points that I never made.

Look at your first three comments above. That's exactly what I mean: had you presented a coherent argument we wouldn't have this trouble.


No, it wasn't. You are seeing things in what I write that aren't there, but this is fully consistent with you arguing style.

If you don't support the Bolsheviks and the Cuban Revolutionaries, as well as the states they founded, then you're not supporting socialist revolution. As of now, your points have been more than vague on this crucial point.


Stop running away from what I've actually said. I didn't say working class.

Oh, I thought you were using "workers" the way every other Marxist on the face of the planet uses the term.


Did any of those incorporate statelessness or classlessness? No. You said if we have rule by the whole people, then no one is ruled. That is exactly like Bakunin's argument.

Socialism does not require a classless, stateless society. The conquest of power by the working class is the abolition of capitalism, but it is clearly not communism. See my first comment in this post. Bakunin, for his part, asserted that this would be no real change at all, and that it would turn into tyranny once more. That sounds a lot like the rhetoric you've been pushing on "party rule".

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat IS socialism. You must remember that there are many different ways to use the term, but in this context it can (and does) refer to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Quotes please.


It might as well have, since you're dancing around the conclusions inherent in the facts.
I didn't dance around any conclusions. I told you to back up your so-called facts so that I could try to make a conclusion. You failed to do so.


Look at your first three comments above. That's exactly what I mean: had you presented a coherent argument we wouldn't have this trouble.We wouldn't be in this trouble if you didn't pull arguments out of your arse and then attribute them to me.


If you don't support the Bolsheviks and the Cuban Revolutionaries, as well as the states they founded, then you're not supporting socialist revolution. As of now, your points have been more than vague on this crucial point.I said I didn't support a party "ruling in the interests" of the working class, as opposed to the working class itself ruling. If that is what exists/existed in those countries, then I don't support them. You arguments about Cuba are extremely annoying, and I'm just going to ignore them starting now. I've stated my position of Cuba multiple times.



Oh, I thought you were using "workers" the way every other Marxist on the face of the planet uses the term.
I can't be assed to look it up, but I think it was Engels that said there have always been workers, but not the modern working class. Either way, I said that if you think it was a poor word choice, you could just replace it with "democratic rule." And since you also don't understand what democratic rule is, then you can replace that with "rule by the whole people." I'm not going to continue arguing semantics with you either.


Socialism does not require a classless, stateless society. The conquest of power by the working class is the abolition of capitalism, but it is clearly not communism. See my first comment in this post. Bakunin, for his part, asserted that this would be no real change at all, and that it would turn into tyranny once more. That sounds a lot like the rhetoric you've been pushing on "party rule".As I said above, back it up. If we have a workers state, then capitalism has yet to be completely abolished. Bakunin asserted that if you have rule by the people, then no one is being ruled. You asserted that if you have rule by the people, then no one is being ruled. Marx pointed out that this was stupid. I never said that the establishment of a workers state would turn into tyranny, that is a blatant lie.

[robbo203]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat IS socialism. You must remember that there are many different ways to use the term, but in this context it can (and does) refer to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Socialism does not require a classless, stateless society. The conquest of power by the working class is the abolition of capitalism, but it is clearly not communism. See my first comment in this post. Bakunin, for his part, asserted that this would be no real change at all, and that it would turn into tyranny once more. That sounds a lot like the rhetoric you've been pushing on "party rule".



In 1918 even Lenin was quite clear that if the bourgeoisie were still in existence this meant there was still no socialism. He actually said this. The existence of a so called dictatorship of the proletariat (as opposed to the dictatorship over the proletariat instituted by the Bolsheviks) necessarily implies the existence of the bourgeoisie and therefore according to Lenin could NOT be socialism on his terms. The distinction betrween communism and socialism was his invention of course - it was not a distinction that Marx and Engels made. But Lenin claimed that socialism was the lower phase of communism. However, even if he was right in saying this that would have to mean that socialism , once again in Lenin´s own terms would have to be a classless stateless society becuase that is what communism means and as a lower phase of communism , socialism would have to share these attributes

So on both counts you are completely wrong